Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

ADMINISTRATION (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).

Colonel ASHLEY: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions upon what lines the Departmental Committee of Inquiry into the administration of pensions and other grants has been constituted, and why representatives of ex-service men's organisations have not been appointed as members; whether he will consider a medification of the constitution of the Committee in order that representation may be given to the Comrades of the Great War and the Federation of Discharged Sailors and Soldiers; and whether he will insist that any representatives of ex-service men's organisations who may be appointed shall be qualified as laid down in the War Pensions Act by being discharged as disabled?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): The Departmental Committee of Inquiry is, in accordance with the usual practice composed of such persons, as in the judgment of the Minister, are best qualified to advise him upon the subject under investigation. I indicated in the reply given by me on the 25th November to the hon. Member for Kingswinford that at least one member of the Committee is, in fact, a member of the Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Sailors and Soldiers. The Committee has been in Session for some time and it would not be practicable to add members to it now. Any further additions would make it unwieldy. I have other opportunities of meeting the representatives of the ex-
service organisations at regular intervals and hearing their views. I may add that the Departmental Committee will be glad to hear evidence from any, or all, of the associations referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, and invitations with this object have already been addressed to them.

NORTHANTS REGIMENT (PRIVATE E. C. HUGHES).

Mr. WATERSON: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions why the total pension of E. C. Hughes, late Private, No. 201176, l/4th Northants Regiment, has been totally stopped although, after many months' treatment for tuberculosis, he is only allowed to work three hours per day; and, seeing that he is married with a family dependent upon him, whether the decision can be expedited?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The medical authorities were unable to accept the disease from which this man is suffering as due to or aggravated by service. No award of pension can therefore be made, nor can continuance of the advances be authorised pending consideration of his claim. Private Hughes has, however, exercised his right of appeal against this decision; and when, with the assistance of his local committee, he has completed his evidence to his satisfaction, the papers will be forwarded to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal without delay.

Mr. WATERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that he gets some assistance?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I will look into it. I am rather sympathetic, and will see whether anything can be done.

OFFICERS AND NURSES, RETIRED PAY.

Mr. SHORT: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of officers and nurses drawing retired pay?

Mr. MACPHERSON: On the 31st October, 39,872 officers were in receipt of retired pay, and 1,413 nurses were in receipt of pension.

OFFICERS' WIDOWS.

Mr. SHORT: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of officers' widows receiving pensions?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The number of officers' widows receiving pension at 21st October, 1920, was 9,750.

OFFICERS AND DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Mr. SHORT: 10.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of officers and dependants receiving allowances?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The number of officers and dependants, including widows and children, receiving retired pay or pension and allowances under the Royal Warrants or Orders-in-Council was 65,143 on the 31st October.

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION.

Colonel NEWMAN: 11.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received resolutions from Local War Pensions Committees that delay is constantly experienced, and forms a legitimate ground of complaint, in obtaining decisions or claims for alternative pensions, and that this delay is due to the referring of such claims to regional head quarters; that to investigate claims locally is a more expeditious, sympathetic, and satisfactory method; and that a searching inquiry should be con ducted into the whole system of regional administration; and what action does he propose to take?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers given to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth in reply to similar questions on the 2nd December, of which I am sending him copies. My hon. and gallant Friend will see that recent reports in the working of the new alternative pension procedure show a material shortening of the period taken under the old procedure to arrive at a decision.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that this system leads to the employment of a great many more people in pensions administration?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am satisfied that that is not the case.

Major NALL: Will not the system ultimately lead to a considerable reduction?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe that that is so.

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.

Mr. HERBERT: 12.
asked the Minister of Pensions if pensioner J. Surridge, of
88, Victoria Road, Edmonton, who lost a leg in the War, has been out of work for two years; whether he and his wife and two children are living on £2 14s. 6d. pension and unemployment allowance; whether he has been suffering during the last two years from an artificial leg which is too heavy and too short, and of which the harness is burdensome; whether the Minister of Pensions in the first instance ordered this unsatisfactory essential limb which has caused him so much trouble; whether he has asked for the new light metal limb; whether this has been refused and Surridge told that he must take a Blatchford No. 3; whether a Blatchford No. 3 limb weighs from 7 to 12 1bs.; whether it is very liable to break if made lighter than 7 1bs.; whether Mr. Surridge is a small, light man; whether the Blatchford No. 3 is carried from the shoulder, of which method Mr. Surridge has two years' unsatisfactory experience; and whether, in view of the Ministry's statement that pensioners are allowed to choose any limb in the Ministry's approved list which is suitable from a surgical point of view, there is any reason why this pensioner, who has suffered for two years from a bad artificial limb, should not be given the light artificial limb for which he has asked, and, if so, what?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that I have not yet been able to complete my inquiries into this case, but I will communicate fully with my hon. and gallant Friend at an early date.

NORTHUMBERLAND FUSILIERS (PRIVATE JAMES HUNTLEY).

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 15.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Huntley, widow of Private James Huntley, No. 15893, Northumberland Fusiliers, about which the hon. Member of the Consett Division of Durham wrote to him on 1st November and again on 25th November; whether the above soldier died on 28th July, 1920; whether he had been shot through the head and also gassed during the War, and was in receipt of a disability pension of 56s. a week; whether Mrs. Huntley was subsequently in receipt of a temporary pension of 74s. 2d. a week until 30th October, when she was informed that she was not eligible for a pension; whether she appealed; and, seeing that she and her nine children are in great want, whether he will ex-
pedite a decision in her case, and meanwhile order her temporary pension to be again paid, or whether she must apply to the Poor Law?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am having this case reviewed, and have meanwhile ordered the continuance of payment of her temporary pension.

TREATMENT AND TRAINING CENTRE, GLAMORGAN.

Major COPE: 14.
asked the Minister of Pensions the cost of the conversion of the Buttrills Camp, Barry, Glamorgan, into a convalescent treatment and training centre for the wounded?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): The total estimated cost of conversion is £62,150, including equipment and furnishing, and payments to the Disposal Board in respect of hutting, etc.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. T. WILSON: 13.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of permanent Civil servants at present employed in the Ministry of Pensions?

Mr. MACPHERSON: There are 270 permanent Civil servants of all grades in my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

CREAMERIES, DESTRUCTION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has yet completed the inquiries into the damaging to the extent of £2,000 of the co-operative creamery at Abbeydorney and the assault on the manager; if he is aware that the manager, Mr. T. O'Donovan, has made a sworn affidavit that the looting and firing of this creamery and the unprovoked assault on himself was committed by uniformed forces of the Crown; and that, since this matter was raised in this House, the dwellings of the manager and engineman have been burnt down by forces of the Crown?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything
to the statement I made with reference to this matter in reply to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member on the 25th ultimo.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this sacking took place on 18th October, and how is he not able to give the House information about it? Furthermore, is ho aware that, following the first raising of this question in the House of Commons, the manager and engineer of the creamery had their houses burned down by uniformed police, and cannot he take some steps to find out about this matter?

Mr. HENRY: The question of my hon. and gallant Friend was put down on 28th November. It is extremely difficult in the disturbed condition of that district to get an inquiry together. Very often the officers who are to hold the inquiry are shot.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when questions are put down asking for information as to the burning of these creameries we are always put off with evasive replies of this character?

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is not the House tired of these constant allegations against men who are engaged in the execution of their duty?

Mr. HENRY: The House can form its own opinion as to that, but there is no attempt on the part of the Irish Government to evade responsibility.

Mr. MOLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that four officers sent to make inquiry into this particular case when questions were put down have been shot while making inquiries?

Mr. HENRY: Some officers certainly have been shot.

Major HAMILTON: Has any evidence yet been received that uniformed officers of the Crown were responsible for this?

Mr. HENRY: No.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that this question was repeated on November 28th, but that notice of it was given a month ago and that it has been postponed four times?

Mr. LYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every time these questions are put down a policeman is murdered?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No. The houses are burned.

Mr. SWAN: 21.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of cooperative concerns that have been either totally or partly destroyed from March up to the end of November in Ireland; if he can state the estimated value of such property; and if the owner of such property will be entitled to compensation due to such destruction?

Mr. HENRY: For details regarding the destruction of co-operative creameries in Ireland, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Waterson) on the 25th ultimo. So far as I am aware, no other creameries were destroyed in Ireland during November, with the exception of the Duharran creamery near Nenagh, which was destroyed on the 25th or 26th ultimo, of the attack on which I had no knowledge at the time when I gave that reply. I have no means of ascertaining the information desired in regard to co-operative institutions other than creameries in Ireland.

MURDERS AND REPRISALS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, following on the murder of 15 auxiliary police in an ambush near Macroom on 28th November last, many houses and shops in the vicinity were burned or damaged as a so-called reprisal; whether the owners or occupiers, irrespective of age or sex, are supposed to have taken part in the ambush or to have been accessories to the crime; and, if so, why they were not arrested and brought to trial?

Mr. HENRY: I am informed that the only houses which have been burned in or near Macroom are those overlooking the scene of the massacre in which the murderers had lain concealed in preparation for the ambush in which 16 officers were killed. The occupiers of these houses had fled when the police came to arrest them for their complicity in the crime, and the houses were burned as a precautionary measure against similar attacks, and not as a reprisal.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that in future, if one of these terrible outrages occurs, all the houses overlooking the scene of the outrage are to be burned irrespective of ownership, sex, age or any other condition of the occupier?

Mr. HENRY: No, but these particular houses were occupied by the men who committed the murder.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the wives and families of these men supposed to be accessories to the crime? Why punish the families and not the men themselves? [An HON. MEMBER: "Because they ran away."]

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is this burning done under civil or military law?

Mr. MOLES: Are these questions put down with the object of condoning and encouraging crime?

Mr. WATERSON: It is to get the truth, and we cannot get it.

20. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, on the night of the 29th-30th November last, forces of the Crown raided the town of Ardee, county Louth; whether they arrested Patrick Tierney and John O'Carroll; whether the two men were later found dead from gunshot wounds; and what is his explanation for these deaths?

Mr. HENRY: A party of police were sent to Ardee from Drogheda on the night of the 29th ultimo in view of an apprehended attack on the Ardee police barrack. The party while in Ardee did not leave the vicinity of the police barrack, and it is not correct to state that the town was raided. Tierney and O'Carroll were not arrested, and the police have been unable to obtain any information as to the identity of the persons by whom they were murdered. The finding of the military court of inquiry was that their deaths were caused by bullet wounds inflicted by some person or persons unknown.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the relatives of these men declare positively that they were taken into custody by armed servants of the Crown, and when
men are taken into custody by armed servants of the Crown, why are they not safeguarded from gunshot wounds?

Mr. HENRY: The servants of the Crown deny that absolutely.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Of course they do.

TEACHERS' SALARIES.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: 22.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any understanding has been arrived at between the national teachers of Ireland and the education authorities on the question of increased salaries; if so, whether the proposed increase refers to primary or ordinary schools, or to secondary or intermediate schools; and will he state the conditions of service and when this increase becomes effective?

Mr. HENRY: As the answer is a very lengthy one, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: With regard to that part of the question which asks whether the proposed increase refers to primary or ordinary schools, or to secondary or intermediate schools, if the answer with regard to the secondary schools is in the negative, will the right hon. Gentleman say if it is the intention of the Government to deal in the immediate future with the teachers of the secondary schools, who are in a much worse case than the teachers of primary schools?

Mr. HENRY: My right hon. Friend is further considering the question of the secondary schools.

The following is the answer promised:

I am glad to say that, after a series of conferences between the Treasury, the Commissioners of National Education, and the representatives of the Irish teachers, a complete understanding on the question of teachers' salaries has been arrived at. The settlement covers teachers in primary schools only, and takes effect from the 1st April, 1920. The scales of salary and the terms of "Carry Over" are based upon the recommendations of the second Burnham Report on English Teachers' Salaries-salaries with
such modifications as were necessary to suit Irish conditions, principally on the lines laid down in the Report of the Vice-regal Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Killanin, which reported in 1919. The most important item in the provisional agreement is the fixing of a permanent and inclusive scale of salary of £170, rising by annual increments of £12 to £370 for trained men teachers, and of £155, rising by annual increments of £10, for trained women teachers, in either case with opportunity of advancement within the normal scale by the grant of special increments at intervals of not less than three years, and of rising above the maximum of the normal scale by five supernormal increments of varying amount, both these additional benefits being conditional upon reports of highly-efficient service by the teacher. There are a large number of other conditions in the settlement which is on comprehensive lines, and embraces almost the whole of the points dealt with in paragraphs 41 to 48, 55 and 58 of the Killanin Report. I shall be happy to send the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the formal agreement in which they are contained. I am sure that the House will agree with me that this settlement by mutual agreement and, as I understand, with goodwill and harmony on both sides, of a long-outstanding and highly-contentious question is a matter of great satisfaction.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PENSIONS).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 23.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state when the increases of pension authorised by the Increases of Pension Act will be issued to the pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and whether, in view of the small means and the distress of many of these pensioners, he will give directions that such increases should be paid at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. HENRY: I can assure my hon. Friend that the increases of pension authorised by the Pensions (Increase) Act are being issued to the pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary as rapidly as possible. The preliminary inquiries have been completed in over 1,800 cases, increases have already been paid, and the special staff appointed to expedite the work are dealing with the outstanding applications at a rate of over 500 a week.

Colonel NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when they will be completed; will it be before the end of the year?

Mr. HENRY: The total number of cases outstanding is 2,150, and at the present rate of progress that is being made they ought to be completed in five weeks.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Are the pensions being paid as soon as they have been allocated?

Mr. HENRY: Yes.

Sir J. REMNANT: Are the worst cases being taken first?

Mr. HENRY: It is very difficult to say which are the worst cases, as each person thinks his is.

Sir J. REMNANT: Some of them are getting only 9s. a week.

SINN FEIN OUTRAGES (COMPENSATION).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will indemnify all sufferers from the activities of the Sinn Feiners in this country, whether the injuries be to persons or to property?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir; I see no reason to relieve insurance companies of the risks which they take in the ordinary course of business.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if any negotiations that may be entered into arising out of the willingness of the Government to explore all avenues that might lead to a lasting settlement in Ireland will be upon the basis that under no circumstances will Ireland be granted complete independence or fiscal autonomy; and, if this is not the case, will he indicate what concessions the Government would be prepared to make on these two questions?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I have repeatedly laid down the limitations with which the Government is prepared to discuss this question, and I have nothing to add to what I have previously said.

Sir F. HALL: In view of the reports that have been given by the newspapers
on this very subject during the last two or three days will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that no arrangements are entered into that give to Ireland fiscal autonomy or complete separation?

MURDERS AND OUTRAGES (UNIFORMED MEN).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 65.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that much misapprehension is caused both at home and abroad by statements and questions so framed that they convey the impression that armed or uniformed men who commit outrages in Ireland are necessarily servants of the Crown; and, if this is not so, can he do or say anything to remove such misapprehensions and to prevent repetitions of suggestions which can serve no good purpose, and which are unfair to the military and police forces?

Mr. HENRY: I have repeatedly stated in the House that murders and other outrages in Ireland have been committed by persons unlawfully dressed in the uniforms of the soldiers or police. This was true of the recent ambush massacre and mutilation by axes of 16 members of the Auxiliary Division at Killmichael, in County Cork, on the 28th November last. The murderers were dressed in khaki and wore trench helmets.

TROOPS AND POLICE (DEATH DUTIES).

Major HAMILTON: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to say whether the Death Duties (Killed in War) Act, 1914, and the Finance Act, 1918, apply to officers and men of His Majesty's forces killed in connection with the present disturbances in Ireland; and whether he will introduce a one-clause Bill to extend the same privileges to all servants of the Crown killed in these disturbances?

Mr. BALDWIN: The benefits of the Death Duties (Killed in War) Act apply to all ranks of the military forces serving in Ireland as long as the Act itself remains in force. They do not apply to civilian servants of the Crown in Ireland including the Royal Irish Constabulary. But the Chief Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are agreed that they should be so extended under present circumstances. My right hon. Friend gathers that this is also the view of the whole House and he will, therefore, act
upon it in anticipation of legislative sanction which in the present state of public business he fears it would be impossible, to get before we adjourn.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (RETIRING AGE LIMIT).

Mr. R. McLAREN: 25.
asked the Prime Minister if advantage will be taken of the provisions of the Order-in-Council of January, 1910, to ask all Civil Servants who have attained the age of 60 years and over to retire in order to make room for others and help to diminish the, ranks of the unemployed.

Sir J. D. REES: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to save pensions and salaries at this critical financial time, he will consider the propriety of relaxing the 60-year-old rule in the case of all Civil Servants who continue to be equal to the discharge of the duties required of them.

Mr. BALDWIN: With the permission of the hon. Members, I will answer these two mutually distinctive questions together. It would not conduce to the efficiency of the public service either to retire or to retain indiscriminately all Civil servants who have attained the age of 60; the public interest is best served by maintaining the present discretion of Heads of Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

GLASS INDUSTRY.

Captain LOSEBY: 26.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that many employés in the British glass industry, largely built up during the War, are being daily discharged owing to the fact that the present rate of exchange renders it almost impossible for English manufacturers to compete with German manufacturers, further assisted by the prevailing conditions of sweated labour; and if he is yet in a position to give an assurance to those reliant upon the continued existence of this industry that the difficulties created by the rate of exchange have not been overlooked and that temporary emergency legislation, calculated to provide definite and early relief, can be confidently expected?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman, for Sir R. Horne): My right hon. Friend is aware of the position m the glass industry, but is not able at present to add anything to the answer of the 17th November given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), of which he is sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that the glass industry has been compelled to close down some factories, and can nothing be done now to safeguard this industry before it is too late?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend is keeping the glass industry under close observation, and the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that he will do everything he can do.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

WHEAT.

Viscount CURZON: 31.
asked the Prime Minister what is the total amount of wheat which has been bought or is held by the Wheat Commission on behalf of the Government; what is the present value of all such purchases; whether it is still the policy of the. Government to purchase wheat; if so, will such wheat be sold at the market price or at the purchase price; and, in view of the constant and probable further fall in the price of wheat, can the Government remove all restrictions whatever upon the price of wheat?

Sir J. REMNANT: 110.
asked the Minister of Food whether the world's market price of wheat is well below the subsidy level at the present time; and what immediate steps the Government propose to take to remedy the grave injustice of the existing high price of bread?

The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply to these questions. It has already been stated that so long as wheat is being bought for the Government it is clearly undesirable to make public announcements as to the quantities and the prices paid. Such information would be beneficial to sellers and might seriously pre-
judice the Exchequer. It has also been announced that the policy of the Government is to decontrol wheat and flour as soon as possible, and the methods by which the prices of wheat and flour may be brought into day-to-day relation with the movements of the world markets without unnecessary losses to the Exchequer and to distributors, and serious disturbance of trade, are receiving careful consideration. It is obviously impossible to predict the future course of markets, and the Noble Lord who refers to the constant fall in prices overlooks the wide fluctuations that still prevail. Within the last fortnight the average quotation for No. 1 Northern Manitoba wheat, c.i.f. United Kingdom ports, fell to 93s. 6d. per quarter, subsequently rose to 108s. 6d. on Tuesday last, and to-day stands at 104s. I must again point out that wheat not yet shipped cannot at the earliest be available for use as bread flour much before the middle of January.

Viscount CURZON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can answer the third and fourth parts of my question, namely, whether it is still the policy of the Government to purchase wheat, and, if so, will such wheat be sold at the market price or at the purchase price?

Mr. McCURDY: I think when the Noble Lord reads my answer he will find that it does in effect answer his questions. It is the policy of the Government to discontinue the purchase of wheat as soon as practicable, and for that purpose we are considering what steps are necessary in order to ensure that the transition from Government purchase to private purchase may be accomplished without unnecessary losses either to the taxpayer or to the trade.

Viscount CURZON: Are the Government still buying wheat, or are they not?

Mr. McCURDY: Yes.

Mr. REMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the control of wheat will cease?

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman's Department are making a profit out of these transactions?

Mr. McCURDY: The last question has been answered a good many times. The trading transactions of the Ministry of Food during the period, I think, of the last three years have amounted to something like £1,000,000,000. The object of the Ministry was to make neither profit nor loss, but we did, as a matter of fact, make a profit of one-tenth of one per cent. As regards the question as to when the decontrol of wheat will be accomplished and Government purchases cease, I can only repeat the answer I have already given, that the matter is receiving immediate attention, in consultation with the trade, with a view to considering when that course can safely be taken without injury to any of the vital interests concerned.

Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, that the food control is not being conducted with a profit to the Ministry, and as it is proved that it is not being conducted with profit to anyone else in the country, will he consider decontrolling food altogether?

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a decision within, say, one week as to when the control of wheat will come to an end?

Mr. McCURDY: One of the problems which has to be considered in fixing a date for the decontrol of wheat is the assurance that the milling industry will be in a position to undertake its responsibilities. There are agreements entered into with the milling industry during the War which have to be honoured, and the conclusion of which requires some negotiation, and it is quite impossible to contemplate the conclusion of these negotiations, with due regard to the trade interests affected, within any such period as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. REMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when he will be able to come to a decision on this point?

FLOUR.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 106.
asked the Minister of Food whether, when the price of flour was advanced last September, the retailer was protected against loss but prevented from making a profit by an adjustment of account; and whether, in the same way, arrangements
will now be made to credit bakers with any loss which may be incurred by using their stocks at the new retail prices for bread, in view of the fact that a uniform price must be charged for bread and flour in each district, and that the public cannot be expected to take into consideration the varying stocks of flour which may have been bought by retailers from the Government at a higher price?

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 108.
asked the Minister of Food why, in the recent reduction of 4s. per sack in the price of flour, the bakery and flour trades were not protected against consequent loss, whereas upon each advance in price this year the Food Ministry took measures to prevent the trades gaining any benefit; and whether compensation will be paid to those trades which have sustained loss by the fall in prices?

Mr. McCURDY: With regard to the position of retailers I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Morpeth. With regard to the position of wholesalers whose sales remain subject to maximum prices, I am considering the possibility of dealing with individual cases of proved hardship.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that accounts were adjusted when the price was recently raised by the Food Controller even in the case of retailers, and is it not equally practicable and essentially fair that the converse should take place now to prevent these same retailers suffering loss?

Mr. McCURDY: On the occasion on which the price of food was advanced as the necessary machinery for giving effect to the decision of the Government to reduce the bread subsidy, steps of that kind were taken, but they did involve the most extensive account-taking, which, as a matter of fact, took a great many months. Should we be faced with a fall in the world price and the necessity of a fall in the price of flour in this country, it will be quite impracticable to continuously follow the precedent set on that occasion.

Sir F. HALL: If for the purchases the Government are making with regard to wheat now they are making them for ward, are they making them at the present price or a reduced price in anticipation of a considerable reduction?

Mr. McCURDY: I must ask for notice of that question.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that it is quite impossible for retailers in any one district to charge prices in accordance with their stocks, and a man who holds a big stock is therefore bound to suffer very heavily, and is not the solution of the difficulty that to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, of continual adjustments of account, to remove the food control of wheat and flour?

Mr. McCURDY: The fact that retailers necessarily suffer loss upon their stocks upon a falling market is an economic truth wholly independent of the existence or non-existence of control.

Mr. FRANCE: Is it not a fact that when the price was going up the Minister prevented the ordinary economic rules applying, and prevented any adjustment or balance which might have taken place?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SHIPBUILDING POLICY.

Viscount CURZON: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Admiralty have decided as yet on the future shipbuilding policy of the Navy; if so, whether it is the intention to build capital ships; and whether a committee could be set up under the Committee of Imperial De-fence, assisted by experts, if necessary, to inquire into and report upon the whole shipbuilding policy of the Navy, before that policy is finally decided?

The PRIME MINISTER: A statement on this subject will be made in the course of to-day's discussion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether a committee can be set up for the purpose mentioned in the second part of the question?

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCHANGE RATES.

Captain LOSEBY: 34.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of initiating an international conference called together to discuss the mutual difficulties of industrialists throughout the world by the current rates of exchange, and to report on the best means of restoring normal conditions?

The PRIME MINISTER: These questions were fully discussed at the recent International Financial Conference at Brussels, of which a Report has been published, and I do not think that a further conference would throw any additional light on the subject.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not a fact that there is very little hope that there will be any improvement in trade so long as this matter is allowed to drift by the Allied and Associated Powers?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not quite know what my hon. Friend means.

Oral Answers to Questions — VICTORY MEDAL.

Major COHEN: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the dissatisfaction that prevails amongst the few recipients of the Victory Medal with regard to its tawdriness and appearance; and whether, in view of the fact that comparatively few have as yet been issued, future issues of this medal will be improved upon?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answer on 7th December in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Stanton). I would add that the question of improving the finish of the Victory Medal is now receiving further consideration, and a statement on the subject will be made as soon as possible.

Colonel LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who designed the Victory Medal?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No, Sir; I am not able to answer that without notice.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask where it is proposed to make these Victory Medals. Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department ever been able to turn out anything artistic?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great disappointment with the Mons Star, and will he see that the General Service Medal is a better medal than either the Victory Medal or the Mons Star?

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON CONFERENCE (MATERNITY).

Mr. CLYNES: 39.
asked the Prime Minister why it is necessary to devise machinery in accordance with the law and practice of the constitution, in order to give effect to the decisions of the Washington conference on maternity, in view of the fact that the provisions of the Convention merely require legislative enactment?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to my right hon. Friend on the 6th December, as the matter is still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL POSTAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. HURD: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received information that at the International Postal Conference at Madrid a proposal was made that the British Empire should be allowed one vote only; whether he is aware that this proposal, which would have denied to Canada and the other British Dominions the voting power proper to their new national status, was defeated by 43 votes to 22; and what action the British dele gates took upon the question?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): A proposal was made by the delegation of the United States, supported by various South American States, to take away all votes at present accorded to Colonies, etc. This would have involved the withdrawal of the votes at present enjoyed by India and the Dominions. The proposal was opposed by the British delegation, and was defeated by 41 votes to 22.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRIES OF MUNITIONS, SHIPPING AND FOOD.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to consider the bringing together under one roof of the Ministries of Munitions, Shipping and Food, and to place them under one director, whose duty would be to see that they were liquidated at the best prices available and in the shortest possible time?

The PRIME MINISTER: A statement in regard to these Ministries will be made this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 42.
asked the Prime Minister what is the cost per month of our occupation of Palestine; what, if anything, is the return; and whether the time has now arrived for us to relieve ourselves of this financial responsibility?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on this subject on the 26th October and on the 23rd November, to which I have nothing to add. With regard to the last part of the question, the British forces in Palestine are already in course of reduction.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Having been put off twice by the Minister for War, to whom I addressed this question, may I ask my right hon. Friend, seeing that we have to make big cuts somewhere in regard to national expense, whether we could make them anywhere better than by taking away the forces from Palestine

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a big question of policy I am willing to discuss, but the Secretary of State for War made the fullest answer on the 26th October.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the civil administration in Palestine is now self-supporting?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I believe it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE "UNKNOWN WARRIOR."

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that no commermoration has ever been held in this country which so touched the hearts of the people as did the burial of the unknown warrior in Westminster Abbey, it is possible to record for future history the name of the individual who first publicly made this very beautiful and appropriate suggestion?

The PRIME MINISTER: I feel sure that the individual, whoever he was, will be quite satisfied with the result of his suggestion.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept it from me, as the individual in question, that that is so?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Was not this suggestion first made publicly by Mr. J. B. Wilson, the news editor of one of the great metropolitan dailies?

Oral Answers to Questions — ASPERSIONS ON MEMBERS.

Mr. SEXTON: 44.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the attacks by a certain syndicate of daily and weekly newspapers upon Members of this House whereby Members who voted in certain Divisions of Thursday and Friday of last week are described as wastrels; whether this is an attack upon the privileges of this House; and what steps, if any, he intends to take to protect Members in the performance of their duty against such attacks?

Colonel C. LOWTHER: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the action of a certain newspaper threatening to pillory as national wasters all Members of this House who refuse to vote against the Government's economic policy on the 9th December; and whether he will consult the Law Officers of the Crown as to how far it is legal for a daily journal to openly threaten to villify, in their respective constituencies, Members who refuse to support the policy it advocates?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before these questions are answered, may I ask whether it is in accordance with the practice of this House for hon. Members to complain of attacks made upon them in the Press, and, if it is in order, therefore, for the question to appear on the Paper?

Mr. SEXTON: On a point of Order. Is it not in accordance with the practice of this House for the Members of this House to be protected in performing their duty?

The PRIME MINISTER: As one who has, during his political life, endured more newspaper attacks than probably any man in this House—

Mr. MacVEAGH: And inspired a good many.

The PRIME MINISTER: I would respectfully counsel my fellow-Members not
to take these newspaper attacks too seriously. If we do our duty fearlessly the public will judge us fairly in the end. There is no fairer tribunal than the British public, who are quick to resent unfair attacks, and there are many signs that they are doing so in this case.

Mr. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think there is a difference between fair criticism and literary hooliganism?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that this House recently has not been reported or taken sufficient notice of in the Press, and that public service has been done by drawing public attention to the doings of this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Press have only a certain number of columns.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of the action of a certain part of the Press, many Members of the House intend to vote for the Government who would have felt that it would be advisable for them under the circumstances to have voted against the Government? I shall vote with the Government.

The PRIME MINISTER: When I saw these attacks I rejoiced because, knowing how the British hate to be bullied, I knew the Government is all right.

Mr. BILLING: Is not the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir F. Hall) tantamount to an admission that he has been driven into another lobby by the action of the newspapers?

Sir F. HALL: I do not want Lord Northcliffe to run the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRADE RELATIONS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister the position at present reached with regard to the resumption of trade relations between this country and Russia; and if the negotiations, if there be any, will have to be modified by the fact that the Communist Government has recently put into effect one of the leading principles of Communist policy by abolish the use of money in Russia?

Mr. ADAMSON: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any statement regarding the opening of trade relations with Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to be in a position to make a statement soon.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the Prime Minister in a position to deny or assent to the statement in the French newspapers that we have reached an agreement?

Mr. ADAMSON: Is the Prime Minister in a position to make a statement before we adjourn for the Christmas holidays?

The PRIME MINISTER: That does not altogether depend upon this Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But have not we had a reply from Moscow?

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

FREE RAILWAY TRAVEL (CRIPPLES).

Captain BOWYER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Press that the South Australian House of Assembly at Adelaide has decided to grant the privilege of free first-class travel for life to crippled ex-service men; and whether he will follow so good an example and confer upon all disabled ex-service men in this country the privilege of travelling first-class at the expense of the State?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have been unable to obtain confirmation of the Press statement referred to.

Captain BOWYER: If I can bring the right hon. Gentleman evidence that this if so, will he then consider the matter seriously, and is he not aware that the present facilities for these disabled men travelling in crowded compartments render it very difficult for them to undertake long journeys?

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, but this illustrates one of the difficulties with which we are confronted whenever we come to the question of expenditure. It is really a difficulty between competing claims, all of great merit. This is one, but we must take into account the condition of the national finances.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

TURKEY.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the French and the Italian Governments recognise that the Turkish Treaty is unjust and unworkable, the British Government agree with their two Allied Governments?

The PRIME MINISTER: So far from the French and Italian Governments recognising that the Turkish Treaty is unjust and unworkable, the High Commissioners united on 24th November in pressing the Turkish Government to ratify the Treaty immediately.

Mr. HERBERT: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the declaration of the French Prime Minister in to-night's evening papers?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I have not seen any papers.

Mr. T. SHAW: Is it not the fact that the French and Italian Governments are very well satisfied, and that if there is any dissatisfaction with the conditions it is with the British?

Mr. A. HERBERT: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if the present Turkish agreement in the Near East contains the violation of the Allied pledges in respect to the Bulgarians, Turks, and Arabs; whether, as one consequence, Turkish nationalism is successfully opposing the Allies; and if the whole of the Moslem world is restive under the imputed breaches of faith on the part of Great Britain?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

DISARMAMENT (GERMANY).

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 57.
asked the Prime Minister what is the total number of guns, rifles, and aeroplanes surrendered or destroyed by the Germans under Allied supervision since the Armistice, excluding naval material; and what percentage of the total numbers of each of the above categories of surrendered or destroyed arms bear to the total number in possession of the German armies at the time of the Armistice?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply
given on Monday to a similar question by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. With regard to the second part, the percentage in the case of aeronautical material represents 92 per cent. of the number in possession of Germany at the time of the Armistice, but it is not possible to form an exact estimate of the percentage in regard to guns and rifles.

LIGHT CRUISERS, GERMANY.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 58.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government have any information regarding the Report that the Main Committee of the German Reichstag have approved the expenditure of 25,000,000 marks for the building of a light cruiser; if he will state whether such action conforms to the spirit of the Peace Treaty; and whether expenditure of this nature will affect the ability of Germany to comply with her obligations as to financial reparations?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin has been instructed to make an immediate inquiry. With regard to the second part of the question, Germany has the right under the Peace Treaty to build light cruisers up to 6,000 tons, in order to replace ships allowed under the Treaty. The point, however, is one for the Reparation Commission, whose attention has been drawn to it.

Sir F. HALL: As my right hon. Friend is inquiring from our representatives at Berlin, will it be convenient if I put a question down for this day week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

MANDATES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask you, Sir, a question concerning the future powers of the House? The terms of the mandate to be assumed by the British Empire under the terms of the Peace Treaties have to be submitted for approval to the Council of the League of Nations, and the Government have declared their intention of submitting the terms of the mandate to the Council of the League for approval, and then of laying them before Parliament, and I wish to ask you whether, when the terms of these mandates are laid before Parliament, you will admit hon. Members to
attempt to move or to carry out amendments or extensions or alterations of any sort in the terms of the mandates if they have been once approved by the Council of the League of Nations?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts to me is rather of a hypothetical character. I have not seen one of these mandates myself, and when they come here I do not know whether they will be laid before the House simply for its information, or whether the House will be asked to take some action upon them. All I should be justified in saying at present is that, so far as I can see, they would not be exempted business within Standing Order No. 1. Whether Amendments can be moved to them or not will depend upon what action the Government invites the House to take upon them.

Oral Answers to Questions — POET LAUREATE.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether any of the hymns sung at the recent burial of the unknown warrior were written by the Poet Laureate; whether, in connection with that solemn event on the declaration of peace, or the unveiling of the Cenotaph, or any of the other great events of the War, he has written any poems or verses; and, if not, will he consider the question of the appointment of a national poet whose muse is more attuned to the soul of the British nation?

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask, in the event of his adopting the suggestion in the last line of the question, he will take into consideration the ability of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Bottomley) to soothe the soul with mournful numbers?

The PRIME MINISTER: So far as I am aware, the Poet Laureate has not written any hymn commemorating the recent burial of the unknown warrior. Mr. Bridges has written and published many poems on the War which my hon. Friend does not appear to have read. As regards the last part of this question, I would refer to the answers given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham on the 6th August, 1919.

Colonel LOWTHER: Ought not the Laureateship be offered to Mr. Rudyard Kipling?

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the claims of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton)?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is this distinguished poet paid by-[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. PAUL'S BRIDGE.

Mr. GILBERT: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement that the City Corporation propose to proceed shortly with the building of the new St. Paul's Bridge; whether he is aware that it is estimated that this bridge, at present prices, will cost about £4,000,000; that there already exist two bridges, namely, Blackfriars and the rebuilt Southwark Bridge, quite close to the site of the new bridge, and that it does not connect any main traffic arteries north or south of the river; and whether, in view of the present need for economy in public expenditure, the Government will use their influence with the City Corporation not to proceed with the proposed new bridge, but to use their Bridge House Estates' money on a part of the river where a new bridge is more urgently needed in the interest of London traffic?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to reply to this question My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is receiving a deputation from the Corporation of London in the course of next week, when the policy to be pursued by the Corporation will be discussed. The financial aspect of the proposal and other considerations referred to in the hon. Member's question will doubtless come under review on the same occasion, and pending that interview, the hon. Member will realise that I should not be justified in expressing a definite opinion upon the project.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether any financial
assistance has at any time been either given or promised to Greece for the Greek Army in Asia Minor?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

Sir F. HALL: 78.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Great Britain is now rendering any financial assistance to Greece; if so, what is the nature and extent of such financial assistance, and on what terms it is given?

Mr. ALFRED T. DAVIES: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British credits to the value of £10,000,000 were advanced to the late Greek Government; whether there is still an unused balance of approximately £3,000,000; and whether it is proposed to take any action regarding this latter sum should ex-King Constantine return to the throne of Greece?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Under the financial agreement of February, 1918, His Majesty's Government opened a book credit in favour of the Greek Government to the approximate extent of £10,000,000. The Government of M. Venizelos had already drawn upon this credit to the extent approximately of £6,500,000. The new Greek Government have now been informed that in the event of the return of the ex-King Constantine to the throne of Greece no further financial assistance will be afforded, and all further Greek drafts upon the balance of this credit will thus have to be suspended.

Sir F. HALL: Have we got any security for the £6,500,000 which they have already had? Will my hon. Friend say upon what terms this loan was granted?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice.

Sir F. HALL: It was in my question.

Major O'NEILL: In view of the very large sum advanced to Greece, has the hon. Gentleman been branded as a waster by the Press?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not know.

Mr. E. H ARMSWORTH: Is it not a fact that the financial assistance to Greece has been spent on the Greek Army?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice.

Mr. DOYLE: In the event of the return of ex-King Constantine, is there any machinery for getting back this £6,500,000?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That question should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed the House more than once that we were not assisting the Greek Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot recollect the actual statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUSINESS (RAILWAY FARES).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when sanctioning travelling expenses of members of the public on public business, he will provide that only third-class fares will be paid from public funds?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will bear the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion in mind when the general scales of travelling expenses are reviewed.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Agriculture has just issued a circular as to the Council of Agriculture for England, saying that the Treasury has sanctioned payment for travelling, not limited as to class, for this Council?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. BRIANT: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made, in view of the impossibility
of assessing jointly a married couple, in the case of the husband being a weekly wage earner, and thus liable to quarterly assessment, and the wife a salaried employé, being assessed yearly, to ensure that the wife receives her proportionate share of the £225 and £45 allowance; and if he will say whether either of the following methods of assessment may be adopted, namely, assessment as a separate individual entitled to £135 abatement and to half the other family allowances, or to estimate the husband's salary on a minimum basis and in this way work out the proportionate shares of the allowances due to the husband and wife respectively?

Mr. BALDWIN: The question of an apportionment of the deductions from assessable income between husband and wife by reference to their respective assessable incomes arises only where an application for separate assessment is made, either by the husband or wife, under the provisions of Section 25 of the Finance Act, 1920. The number of such applications is in fact not large, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not aware that any difficulty of the nature suggested in the question has yet occurred in any of these cases, but if the hon. Member has a particular case in mind and will furnish him with the details, he will be happy to have the matter investigated and will communicate to him the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EMPLOYES).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many men and women, exclusive of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and post office employés, were employed in Government Departments on the 1st of December last, and also the number of industrial employés in dockyards and similar establishments?

Mr. BALDWIN: Statistics of the numbers of Government staffs on the 1st instant are not yet available. The number of men and women, exclusive of sailors, soldiers, airmen and post office
employés, employed on the 1st October in Government Departments was approximately 177,000. The number of industrial staff employed at the same date, excluding post office employés, was approximately 140,000, of whom approximately 126,000 were employed under the Admiralty, War Office, Air Ministry and Ministry of Munitions.

Mr. BILLING: Has this been done to make the world safe for bureaucracy?

Oral Answers to Questions — DISPOSAL BOARD (SALES).

Colonel GRETTON: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount already received by the Treasury during the current financial year on account of sales by the Disposal Board, sale of ships, and the realisation of property of all kinds, including in the total any repayments for services rendered or otherwise not voted by Parliament as appropriations in aid; and what is the total amount estimated to be received by the Treasury from all such sources during the present financial year?

Mr. BALDWIN: The estimated revenue from special miscellaneous receipts, including Disposal Board receipts and sale of ships, is £302,000,000, of which £191,648,042 had been received up to the 4th December, as shown in the published Exchequer Return. No receipts from disposals or sale of ships have this year been appropriated in aid of Votes except £3,000,000 on account of the proceeds of the sale of German ships appropriated by Parliament to the extent of £4,999,900 in aid of the coal advances under the Spa Protocol.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL DEBT.

Major NALL: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the National Debt at the latest convenient date under the sub-heads, bonds and bills, war loans, foreign debt, and Consols?

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement in reply to this question.

The following is the statement referred to:—

The approximate debt outstanding on 30th November, 1920, was as follows:



£


Funded Debt (2½ per cent. Consols, etc.)
315,000,000


Terminable Annuities
18,500,000


3½ per cent. War Loan, 1925/8
62,700,000


4½ per cent. War Loan, 1925/45
12,800,000


5 per cent War Loan, 1929/47
1,949,300,000


4 per cent. War Loan, 1929/42
67,200,000


4 per cent. Funding Loan, 1960/90
407,000,000


4 per cent, Victory Bonds
357,700,000


Exchequer Bonds, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1925, and 1930
315,000,000


4 per cent, and 5 per cent. National War Bonds
1,441,000,000


Treasury Bonds, 5/15- year
13,850,000


Treasury Bills
1,111,564,000


Ways and Means Advances
222,614,000


National Savings Certificates
277,900,000


Other Debt
1,163,500,000



£7,735,628,000

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS (CANADA).

Mr. HURD: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the advertisement of the Canadian Government in the British Press announcing that passengers proceeding to Canada and who intend to return to the United Kingdom will require a passport to secure a. re-entry into this country; and whether he will call the attention of the Canadian Government to the inaccuracy of this statement and to the fact, as announced by him on 16th November last, that, under the present Regulations, British subjects may visit Canada without holding any passport?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The statement referred to by the hon. Member, to which my attention has been called, is not inconsistent with the reply given
to his question on the 16th ultimo, for while it is the fact that persons travelling to Canada direct can do so without being in possession of passports, British subjects intending to return to this country should obtain passports in order to prove on entry into the United Kingdom that they do not come within the restrictions of the Aliens Order.

Mr. HURD: Is that a sufficient purpose for maintaining a passport staff?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is not the only object: my hon. Friend realises that the office is a great convenience, too.

Mr. HURD: Is there any purpose whatever served by requiring that British subjects visiting a portion of our Dominions should carry passports that are never asked for?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Visitors can proceed to Canada without a passport, and travel there, but it is advisable to have it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

POLAND.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 75.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made by the League of Nations in collecting the sum of £2,000,000 to conduct the campaign against typhus in Poland, and also the sum of £250,000 required for immediate use in that campaign; and what exactly is the relation between the larger and the, smaller of those funds?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that the appeal made by the Council of the League of Nations has not met with the success that was anticipated, and that the whole question is still under consideration by the Assembly at Geneva.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (BRAZIL AND POLAND).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 76.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an Ambassador for Brazil and a Minister for Poland have now been appointed?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I hope before long to be able to make an announcement on the subject.

Sir S. HOARE: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it very injurious to this country that there should be all this delay?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that this matter has received a good deal of careful consideration at the Foreign Office.

Sir S. HOARE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the reason for this delay of many weeks?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: These are very important appointments, and the fullest consideration must be given before they are made.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHINE COMMISSION.

Mr. GILBERT: 79.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the names of the countries represented on the Rhine Commission; how many representatives each country has; what are the names of the British representatives; and where any representations affecting British trade interests on the Rhine should be sent?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Under the Treaties of Peace the Central Commission of the Rhine is to consist of:

2 representatives of the Netherlands.
2 representatives of Switzerland.
4 representatives of German riparian States.
5 representatives of France, including the President of the Commission.
2 representatives of Great Britain.
2 representatives of Italy.
2 representatives of Belgium.
The Netherlands and Swiss Governments have not yet nominated their representatives.

The British representatives are:
Colonel Baldwin, C.B.
Brigadier-General H. O. Mance, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O.
The Central Commission is not directly concerned with British trade interests and representations affecting those interests on the Rhine should be made to the D.O.T. or the British Consular officers of the district.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS, NATURALISATION.

Mr. HAILWOOD: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the average annual number of aliens who were naturalised as British subjects prior to the War; the numbers who have been dealt with in each of the two years since the Armistice; and the number of aliens whose applications are awaiting decisions?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The average annual number of aliens naturalised during the ten years before the War, 1904–1913, was 963. The number naturalised in 1919 was 1,417, and in 1920, up to 30th November, 2,171. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer, to my reply on the 2nd instant to a similar question by the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth.

Mr. HAILWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is not a fact that some of these applicants have been waiting twelve months? Is this due to the large number of applicants or to the inefficiency of the staff dealing with them?

Mr. SHORTT: There are a large number of applicants awaiting their turn, and the staff is so small that I think some of them have waited more than twelve months.

Colonel BURN: Will the right hon. Gentleman put some restriction upon the number of aliens who are coming into this country and supplanting our own men?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 88.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Report of His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories on the conditions of sanitary accommodation in factories and workshops reveals a deplorable low standard among local authorities in many parts of the country; and whether, and in how many instances, advantage has been taken of Sections 4 and 5 of the Factory and Workshop Act by the Home Office acting in default and recovering from the local authority?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.
As regards the latter part, many notices of defects have been sent to the local authorities, but in the event of their not taking steps to remedy them, all that the inspectors can do is to serve notices on the factory and workship occupiers requiring them to provide suitable accommodation. The root of the mischief lies in the fact that in the districts concerned the system of drainage is insufficient, that is to say, the conditions in the factories and workshops are due to circumstances for which the local authorities are responsible, and can only be remedied by the local authorities adopting improved standards. On this side the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health, who have it, I understand, at present under consideration, and are about to confer with the Home Office with a view to joint action.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 89.
asked the Home Secretary when the amending Factory and Workshop Bill is to be introduced?

Mr. SHORTT: I hope to introduce this Bill next Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG.

Mr. WALTER SMITH: 91.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Report regarding the question of slavery has been received from the Governor of Hong Kong; and, if so, if it is the intention to publish the Report?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): Yes, Sir; a Report has been received. It is not in a form in which it could conveniently be published, but I shall be glad to let the hon. Member see it if he desires.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Does the hon. Member propose to do anything, as a result of the Report, to wipe this stain from our name in the Far East?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, Sir. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not present in the House when, on a previous occasion, I stated that the Secretary of State suggested the formation of a strong local Chinese Committee to look after these adopted children, and to see that they are not ill-treated.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS, SOMERSET.

Mr. WATERSON: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of free places awarded under Article 20 of the Regulation for Secondary Schools in the administrative county of Somerset and to pupils residing in the urban district of Weston-super-Mare, respectively, for the school years 1918–19 and 1919–20?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The number of free place pupils admitted to secondary schools in Somersetshire in 1918–19 and 1919–20 were 191 and 254, respectively. I cannot state the number of free place pupils admitted in those years who came from Weston-super-Mare, but only two have been identified as so coming in 1919–20.

Mr. WATERSON: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that Weston-super-Mare, with a population within a radius of five miles of its town hall of over 30,000, has no secondary school recognised by the Board; that the local education authority held a public inquiry into the matter nearly two years ago, and decided that a secondary school for both boys and girls was urgently required; that pupils from the district still have to travel from 30 to 40 miles daily to attend schools at Bristol or Bridgwater, which are already overcrowded; and what steps does he pro pose to take to expedite the removal of the disability suffered by the parents and children concerned?

Mr. H. LEWIS: The reply to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Board have recently approved the preliminary proposals of the authority for the provision of a boys' school at Weston-super-Mare, and the provision of a girls' school is also understood to be in contemplation.

EDUCATION SCHEMES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the direction contained in the Education Act, 1918, that the local education authority may, and when required by the Board of Education shall, submit a scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Act will mean the possible over-
riding of the declared wishes of county and other elected authorities; and is he prepared to intimate to the House that for a period of not more than three years he is willing that the Act should be amended so as to omit the word "shall"?

Mr. LEWIS: I think that the local education authorities are amply protected against arbitrary or oppressive action by the Board of Education by Section 5 and Sub-section 5 of Section 44 of the Act, and I see no reason for the amendment of the Act in this particular.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that a deputation waited upon the President of the Board of Education on this subject?

Mr. LEWIS: I will make inquiries with regard to that.

CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.

Major HAMILTON: 85.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received any estimate of the costs of building and equipment of the necessary new continuation schools under the Act of 1918; and whether he can state the amount which will have to be raised for this purpose by education authorities?

Mr. LEWIS: Local education authorities have not, except in a few areas for which "Appointed Days" have been fixed, submitted estimates of the cost of buildings and equipment of continuation schools. Accommodation is being provided mainly, if not entirely, by the use and adaptation of existing buildings, the cost of which varies considerably but is far below that which the provision of new buildings would involve.

Major HAMILTON: Is my hon. Friend aware that an influential body waited upon the Prime Minister on this subject, and will he give the House an undertaking that no expenditure in connection with this matter will be undertaken without the House being given a chance of expressing its opinion?

Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: Is it not a fact that if the Government stopped wasting money in Ireland and elsewhere there would be plenty of money for education?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 92.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he anticipates the £200,000 voted to hi3 Department on the 1st instant under Supplementary Estimate, Class 1, 10b, will be refunded to the Exchequer in the next financial year; and, if not, in which year he expects it to be paid back?

Sir A. MONO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 93.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he anticipates, in the event of further large numbers of houses being erected for local authorities by his Department, he will require further Supplementary Estimates to finance such transactions?

Sir A. MOND: The amount which has been voted will be sufficient to finance all schemes undertaken by my Department during the present financial year, and no further Supplementary Estimate will be required.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICE OF WORKS (LONDON DEPOTS).

Mr. GILBERT: 94.
asked the First Com missioner of Works how many depôts his Department has in London and for what goods they are used; and will he state if such buildings are the property of the Government or if any of them are only leased for permanent or temporary use.

Sir A. MOND: There are 18 depots used for the storage of furniture and general stores; 5 coal depots and 39 small store-yards used for the storage of small stocks of building materials and ironmongery, fittings, etc. The majority of the depots are Crown property, and the remainder are either requisitioned or held on lease.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOROUGH EXTENSIONS.

Mr. BARRAND: 36
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether his attention has been called to the expense involved in holding inquiries into extension schemes under Section 54 of the Local Government Act, 1888; whether, having regard to the need at the present
time for public economy of the most constructive and relentless kind, he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent such unproductive expenditure of public money by postponing all such inquiries until the financial position of the country is placed upon a satisfactory footing;
(2) Whether he is aware that extension schemes are being put forward by Leeds and Bradford in regard to which the preliminary inquiries alone will involve the various districts concerned in an expenditure which is estimated to amount to at least £250,000; and whether, having regard to the demand for economy in everything that is not essential to national security and national efficiency, he will take the necessary measures to postpone these inquiries until such time as the districts concerned can afford to spend public money in this way?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I have been asked to reply to this and the succeeding question. I am well aware of the large expense which has in the past been incurred in connection with inquiries in regard to borough extensions. I think that a good deal of money has been wasted in the excessive employment of expert witnesses and counsel. I have made practical suggestions to the parties concerned in the Leeds and Bradford proposed extensions with a view to diminishing the cost very substantially, but I have not yet received from all the parties their observations on these suggestions. I have no information as to the amount which is being expended by them on preliminary enquiries.

Mr. BARRAND: Is it not a fact that these bodies concerned have felt themselves unable to accept the proposals of my right hon. Friend because they are fighting for their separate existence?

Dr. ADDISON: In my opinion their action is most unreasonable and most wasteful.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LORRIES AND CHARS-A-BANC.

Sir W. SEAGER: 98.
asked the Ministry of Transport whether there is a legal maximum width and length for motor lorries and chars-à-banc; and, if not, will he introduce legislation to limit the width
and length of such vehicles so as to eliminate the possible holding up of traffic and the many dangers to which all users of roads are now exposed by reason of the unwieldly size of these vehicles?

Mr. NEAL: The only general Regulations with regard to the size and weight of heavy motor cars are those contained in the Motor Car (Use and Construction) Order, 1904, and the Heavy Motor Car Order, 1904, to which I would refer my hon. Friend. Under these Orders the width of a heavy motor car cannot exceed 7 ft. 6 ins., but there is at present no restriction as to the length. As my hon. Friend is aware, the whole question of the regulation of road vehicles is at present under consideration, and I do not think it desirable to deal with it piecemeal.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is the hon Gentleman aware that a great many country roads barely exceed seven foot six, and will he bear that in mind having regard to the fact that frequently motor and other traffic is held up in the country on account of these big chars-a-banc?

Mr. NEAL: That matter is dealt with under the Bill the hon. Member intimated that he had not read when he opposed the Second Reading.

Mr. STANTON: Is the hon. Gentle, man aware that poor people cannot afford ordinary motor cars and have to take advantage of the other thing, and some convenience should surely be granted to make it possible for them to ride in their own car?

Mr. NEAL: An opportunity of discussing the whole matter will arise on the Committee stage of the Roads Bill tomorrow.

STRIKE, BRISTOL.

Mr. TILLETT: 102.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that efforts were made to settle through the Joint Industrial Council a dispute between the employers in the road transport industry and the National Transport Workers' Federation; that the employers refused to submit any proposals to the Council, and that one of the parties to the Council was the Motor Transport Employers' Federation; whether the employers insisted upon local negotiations, and that at present in consequence of the failure of such negotiations there is a strike at
Bristol; is he aware that the Motor Transport Employers' Federation has issued an instruction to the employers at Bristol that they are not under any conditions to yield to the men's demands; and that the demands of the men if granted would produce a wage of only 73s. per week to car-men and 85s. per week to motormen in the circumstances; and is he prepared to order a public inquiry into the whole question?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I am aware of this dispute both in its national and local aspects. I have no knowledge of the instruction referred to. Settlements have been reached with a number of employés in Bristol, and the Ministry's local conciliation office is doing his best to compose the remaining differences. I do not think that the case is one which calls for an inquiry as suggested by my hon. Friend, but I need not say that the Department will continue its efforts.

Mr. SHORT: Has the Minister taken any action since yesterday in connection wth the tramway dispute?

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.


Particulars of the Provincial Offices of the Ministry and of the staff employed at each are as follows:-


Office.
Address.
Staff employed.
Approximate annual cost of staff, including travelling and incidental expenses.





£


Irish Branch
Oriel House, Westland Row, Dublin
41
16,138


Edinburgh (Roads Office)
5, Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh
5
2,218


Area Transport Commissioners:





London, Eastern and Home Counties.
12a, Charles Street, Haymarket, S.W.
6
3,622


Midlands
19, Guildhall Buildings, Navigation Street, Birmingham.
3
1,905


Northern
Quebec Annexe 2, Park Place, Infirmary Street, Leeds.
2
1,679


Wales and Monmouth
18, Dumfries Place, Cardiff
3
1,849


Southern and South Western
23, Royal York Crescent, Clifton, Bristol.
3
1,945


Scotland
5, Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh
3
1,717


Sub-Inspecting Officer of Rail ways, Glasgow.
250, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow
1
1,000



Total
-
32,073

In addition there are officers of the Joint Roads Committee transferred from the War Office at Salisbury, Halton Park

Sir M. BARLOW: I think I must have notice. I do not think I can answer so recently as from yesterday without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.

Major COPE: 99.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of Ministry of Transport offices, if any, situated in the provinces; where they are situated; the number of the staff employed by each: and the estimated anual cost of each?

Mr. NEAL: If the hon. and gallant Member will allow me, I think it will be convenient, as the reply is rather lengthy and contains a tabular statement, to print it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir F. HALL: What is the total amount?

Mr. NEAL: The total amount, including the Irish grant, is £32,073, of which the Irish grant is £16,138. Those figures are subject to some footnotes, which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the reply referred to:

Camp, Canterbury, Northallerton, and Chester.

The cost of this staff is recovered from other Government Departments for whom road construction and other work is performed.

The above particulars do not include the Caledonian and Crinan canals nor the harbours under the control of the Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING (NEWSPAPERS).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 101.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the percentage increase allowed for newspapers in estimating the increased cost of living since 1914?

Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: For the purpose of the Ministry of Labour's statistics relating to the increase in the cost of living, the increase since 1914 in the price of newspapers is taken at 100 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEMENT.

Captain BOWYER: 105.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in many parts of the country constructional work is being seriously held up owing to a shortage of cement; that this state of affairs has been in existence for several months; that the result is a diminution of the number of men employed on constructional work, with increased unemployment and cost of work; and that the exports of cement from the United Kingdom for the past few months have been very great and the imports very small; and whether, in view of the fact that the export of coal is controlled on the grounds of protection for domestic industries, he will consider the possibility of applying to cement the same export regulations as exist in the case of coal?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend is aware of the shortage to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. As regards the latter part of the question, pre-war imports were small in relation to output, and it is not to be expected that they would be large now, seeing that other countries are also suffering from the shortage. The question of exports was dealt with in the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on the 2nd December to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, a copy
if which I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply merely deferred for the third time any final consideration of the matter, and how soon can the Board of Trade give a definite reply?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of that. I cannot say how soon a definite reply can be given.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR LAW.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state what will be the business for next week; and may I also ask him whether the notice of Motion standing in his name to-day, that the proceedings of the Committee be exempted from the eleven o'clock rule, means the proceedings of the Committee on the Finance Resolution relating to the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is very undesirable that these Financial Resolutions should be taken after eleven o'clock at night, and, especially in view of the fact that two or three Financial Resolutions were taken at about a quarter to seven this morning, will he give an assurance to the House that there will be no more legislation proposed this Session which involves any further charge upon the subject?

Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask whether, either on the Report stage of the Food Ministry Resolution, if that has not been taken-I think it has not-or on the Second Reading on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, the Government will state, rather more explicitly than they have up to the present, what course they propose to take with regard to food control, and by what date we may hope that it will be abolished?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): With regard to the question of the Noble Lord, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will state as clearly as he can to-day what we propose to do with regard to that and other matters.
As regards the business for next week, assuming that the Roads Bill, the Gold and Silver (Export Control, etc.) Bill,
and the Government of India Act Draft Rules go through to-morrow,
On Monday we shall take the Housing (Scotland) Bill, the Registrar-General (Scotland) Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Police Pensions Bill, and, if time permits, further progress with Estimates.
On Tuesday, the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill, if through Committee, Air and Navy and other Estimates, and the British Empire Exhibition Bill.
On Wednesday, Army Supplementary Estimates, and the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill, if not already taken.
On Thursday, the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill, the Official Secrets Bill, the Air Navigation Bill, and the Juvenile Courts (Metropolis) Bill.
On Friday it may be possible to take the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
This sounds a very alarming programme, and it is very large, but it is right that the House should realise that there is no possibility of our ending the Session at Christmas unless with the co-operation of the House of Commons. If that is given, I think it is possible that we may end the Session before Christmas Day, but even that must depend to some extent on the action in another place. That is the explanation of the necessity for taking this Financial Resolution to-night. I quite admit that it is undesirable, and we are doing it as seldom as we can.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Does not my right hon. Friend see that, if the House gives anything like adequate attention to a long list of Supplementary Estimates, and takes the Report stages of the other Bills to which he has referred, it is impossible, consistently without public duty, to rise before Christmas, and that it would be very much better to announce as speedily as possible what the real situation in practice must be?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have announced what the real situation is. We have often found that at the end of a Session business can be got through, with adequate discussion, in a shorter time than at other periods of the Session. It is not a question of the convenience of the Government. It does not matter nearly so much to us as to other Members whether the Session is prolonged. It is for the House to decide.

Mr. ACLAND: May I ask a question with regard to an opportunity for discussion of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee? The Chairman has a customary right to ask for such an opportunity, and I wish to make a suggestion about it for my right hon. Friend's consideration. I think that probably the House will not wish to deal this Session, if we can help it, with anything, apart from Supplementary Estimates, except legislation. Even if we come back after Christmas, we shall want to finish up, and not to have a new topic introduced, such as the Report of the Public Accounts Committee or the equally important Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, of which the right hon. Baronet (Sir. F. Banbury) is Chairman. If I, so to speak, withdraw the right of asking for an opportunity this Session, would the Leader of the House see that we get an early day for the discussion of, perhaps, both these Reports at the beginning of next Session?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a perfectly reasonable request, and one which I shall certainly grant if it is possible; but my right hon. Friend knows that at the beginning of the Session we are very much hampered by the necessity of getting through financial business, and it must to some extent depend upon that.

Mr. ACLAND: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask when the remaining stages of the Civil Service Supplementary Votes are going to be taken? I do not think they were taken last night, or, at any rate, I am not aware of it.

Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend is correct; they were not taken last night. They will be taken as soon as we can get time to deal with them. I cannot name any particular date; it will depend on the progress of other business.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: May I ask if the Air Estimates will have precedence over the Civil Service Estimates which are now partly discussed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We do propose to take them in the order I have mentioned.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman said that on Monday he
was going to take the Supplementary Estimates, and after that these others. Do we understand that, if the Supplementary Estimates are not finished on Monday, he will go on with them before taking these further Estimates which have now been laid?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is right, and if we have time on Monday we shall proceed with the Civil Service Estimates.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates, at any rate, shall not be taken after 11 o'clock at night?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Obviously I can give no such undertaking, because it would mean that we should have to abandon the hope of ending the Session before Christmas. I am rather surprised at the idea which is now so prevalent that it is impossible for Members of the House to give due attention to their work after 11 o'clock at night. I have had a great deal of experience in other days when that was normal.

Lord HUGH CECIL: Would it not be wiser to drop a good many of these Bills, and so save the time spent in passing all these foolish little Bills?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to that is that we do not think that they are foolish little Bills, or we should not have introduced them.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it proposed to drop the Teinds Bill this Session?

Mr. BONAR LAW: indicated assent.

Mr. BILLING: If the Government succeed in getting their vote of confidence to-day, having regard to the fact that there is no serious opposition, could not they pass all these Bills en bloc?

4.0 P.M.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings in Committee on Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) [Compensation] be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Honor Law.]

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 49.

Division No. 397.]
AYES.
[4.0 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hailwood, Augustine


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Colvin, Brig-General Richard Beale
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W (Liv'p'I.W.D'by)


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Cope, Major Wm.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Atkey, A. R.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Curzon, Commander Viscount
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy


Barnston, Major Harry
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Barrand, A. R.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Donald, Thompson
Hurd, Percy A.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hlingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Edge, Captain William
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Johnstone, Joseph


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Flldes, Henry
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Kidd. James


Berwick, Major G. O.
Foreman, Henry
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
France, Gerald Ashburner
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Fremantle Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gange, E. Stanley
Lane-Fox, G. R.


Britton, G. B.
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Gardiner, James
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Bruton, Sir James
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lindsay, William Arthur


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lloyd, George Butler


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Gould, James C.
Lorden, John William


Butcher, Sir John George
Grant, James A.
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)


Carr, W. Theodore
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander


Casey, T. W.
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Lynn, R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Greig, Colonel James William
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Macmaster, Donald


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
McMicking, Major Gilbert


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sutherland, Sir William


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Pratt, John William
Taylor, J.


Magnus, Sir Philip
Purchase, H. G.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Mitchell, William Lane
Randies, Sir John S.
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Moles, Thomas
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Remer, J. R.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Remnant, Sir James
Warren, Lieut-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Wason, John Cathcart


Morris, Richard
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Morrison, Hugh
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Rodger, A. K.
Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson


Mosley, Oswald
Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Nail, Major Joseph
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Neal, Arthur
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Seager, Sir William
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Seddon, J. A.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Winterton, Major Earl


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wise, Frederick


Nield, Sir Herbert
Simm, M. T.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Stanton, Charles B.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Starkey, Captain John R.
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Parker, James
Steel, Major S. Strang
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H (Norwich)


Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.



Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Stevens, Marshall
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Stewart, Gershom
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Sugden, W. H.
Ward.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Irving. Dan
Spencer, George A.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Swan, J. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Bromfield, William
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Tillett, Benjamin


Cairns, John
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Waterson, A. E.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Myers, Thomas
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Rendall, Athelstan
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Glanville, Harold James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wintringham, T.


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Rose, Frank H.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grundy, T. W.
Royce, William Stapleton



Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. Hogge and Mr. Alfred Davies.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill, without Amendment.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

Fourth Report brought up, and read, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 231.]

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (GUARANTEE) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee E.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 232.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 232.]

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to taken into consideration To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: I beg to move,
That this House will not sanction Expenditure for 1921–22 in excess of £808,000,000, the amount estimated as being necessary for a normal year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 23rd October, 1919.
Let me, in the first place, express my appreciation that the Leader of the House has given us this opportunity for a Debate on expenditure. I hope that it will not partake of a party character. If this were a game of ordinary party politics, I should not be playing it. It must be apparent to every reflective mind that we must, if we are to avoid disaster, have a sharp reversal in our financial policy. The war habit of freely spending—I might say recklessly and extravagantly spending—must be ruthlessly broken. As far as I can judge, the situation has got out of hand. The House last October, at the insitgation of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, passed a Resolution promising its hearty support to the Government in all reasonable proposals, however drastic, for the reduction of expenditure and the diminution of debt. That Resolution, up till now, appears to me to have been, more or less, a pious platitude. The expenditure tap is still running, and running to waste. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a Budget that hoped to raise a revenue of £1,400,000,000, and he included in that Budget something like £198,000,000 new taxation, which was about our pre-war expenditure. I do not think, if the present expenditure is to go on, that it was anything too much, but I do say that, since the Chancellor introduced his Budget, there has been a creeping paralysis in the industry of the country. There are men to-day who want work and cannot get it, and the man who wants work and cannot get it is not only a pathetic spectacle, but he may be a great danger in the community. Even law-abiding men, when they are hungry, and especially if they have families at home who are hungry, will do deeds which they would not do in calmer moments. It is a truism to say that we have had Europe wasted with war, and,
if I may be allowed to do so, I would quote a resolution which was passed by the International Financial Conference of the League of Nations some two months ago. This is what they said:
The statements presented to the Conference show that on an average some 20 per cent, of the national expenditure is still being devoted to the maintenance of armaments and the preparations for war. The Conference desires to affirm with the utmost emphasis that the world cannot afford this expenditure.
Our expenditure on armaments this year was budgeted at £230,000,000 for the fighting forces, and there are Supplementary Estimates. The pre-War expenditure was something like £85,000,000. If I talk about my own Department, the Admiralty, let it not be thought that I am not one who believes that we owe an undying debt of gratitude to the Navy. But for the Navy our troops could not have been conveyed abroad; but for the Navy that blockade which broke the Hun could never have taken place. Therefore, if I criticise my own Department, it will not be in the smallest degree to belittle the enormous efforts of the Navy during the late War. What, however, has the Admiralty done? It is two years since the Armistice took place. How has the Admiralty gone to work to reduce expenditure? I have here an answer given to a question a day or two ago with regard to the personnel in the dockyards and at the Admiralty itself. In the out-port establishments—that means the dockyards—in July, 1914, when, I will not say we were preparing for war, but when we had to take precautions against the German menace, and against the German fleet which was in full being, but to-day is at the bottom of the sea-at that time in the dockyards there were 58,000 men. To-day there are 77,000 men. Can any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on that Bench opposite give me any real explanation why 20,000 more men should be maintained in the dockyards than there were prior to the War in 1914? Take the numbers engaged at the Admiralty. In July, 1914, the staff numbered 2,072. On the 1st November, 1920, it was three times as many, namely, 6,918. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is he satisfied with the Admiralty in this respect? The wages paid in the dockyards in July, 1914, amounted to £5,000,000 per annum. To-day they represent £16,500,000 per annum. True there has been a rise in wages, but there
must be a reduction in personnel later on. At the Admiralty in July, 1914, salaries were paid at the rate of £514,000 per annum. To-day they amount to £1,944,000, or nearly four times as much. So far as the Admiralty is concerned, therefore, they have not taken to heart the Resolution which the House of Commons passed last year. I say frankly there must now in the out-port establishments and at the Admiralty, be a large amount of work being undertaken for giving men employment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Hear, hear.

Mr. LAMBERT: I cannot help feeling myself that if you are giving men employment for employment sake, it is better to give them the unemployment dole. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Wait until I have finished my sentence. Let us know what we are to pay. If you are giving men employment for employment sake, surely they are using up raw material and all sorts of machinery which would be better employed elsewhere? I want to know what we are spending for the purpose of giving men employment for employment sake. Let us know what the facts are. I am sorry to have to say it, but I distrust the vision or the courage of the present Board of Admiralty. We have had a revolution in naval warfare. Aircraft have come in, and yet, for all that, the Board of Admiralty at the present moment has allowed the aircraft to be under the Secretary for War. To my mind that is a very humiliating position, from an Admiralty point of view. I am going to ask, and I hope I may get a reply, what is the policy of the Government with regard to the future of naval expenditure? Is it their policy to build against America? To my mind it would be unthinkable. Despite the views of some people in this country, we, I think, owe a great debt of gratitude to the Americans for coming into the War. Apart from that, does it enter the mind of any responsible man that America is going to attack us? For one thing, we owe America about a thousand millions of money, and I presume, therefore, it would not be in the interests of America to attack a debtor nation. Let us have a definition of the Government's policy. Do they propose to build ships against America?
Let me say a word about the War Office. I have maintained all through the War that the Secretary for War is the right man in the wrong place. He is active, imaginary, and adventurous. As an Admiralty clerk said to me when I was serving at the Admiralty, "It is never dull when Winston is about." I really want the War Office to-day not to be humming, but rather to hide itself. £146,000,000 was the Estimate for the Army and the Air Service. There are Supplementary Estimates. I say we cannot afford this great expenditure. It is very painful to talk about these matters. We had great hopes of the League of Nations. I trust the League of Nations may be able to take such steps as to give Europe an illuminating ray and hope of peace. I ask the Government to make the League of Nations not a scrap of paper, but a solemn pact between nations.
I must say a few words about the domestic policy of the Government. I think they misread the situation last year. There was a feverish rush of Bills through this House which all cost money. They were trying to burn the candle at both ends. That was not a favourable time for passing Bills through this House, and it would have been far better if the Government at that time had really taken count of the situation created by the War, and had endeavoured to garner the rewards of the sacrifices made by our troops. To-day we have men all over the Turkish Empire. We have large numbers of troops in the East. I have a list of them here. There are no fewer than 170,000 of them. There are 101,000 in Mesopotamia, costing us £2,500,000 per month. We have troops in Constantinople, Egypt, and Palestine; in all there are 170,000 men costing £4,410,000 per month, or £53,000,000 annually, excluding capital expenditure. I think it would have been far better if the Minister of Health and the Minister of Transport had been sent to Mesopotamia to settle matters there, instead of passing their Bills through this House. They would have been a very interesting pair. Let me ask the Government, do they propose to withdraw their troops from Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, and Constantinople, or do they propose to go on keeping there these large numbers of men at this huge expense to the British tax-
payer? If they do, I say the British taxpayer cannot afford it.
I want also to ask what is the policy of the Government in regard to industry in this country. Are we to have freedom from bureaucratic control? If we are, why do not the Government dismiss their officials from Whitehall? It is not merely a question of saving a few millions. The activities of these officials are in most cases mischievous. It is their activities that I fear. Their activities cost money; it is not only their salaries, it is what they are responsible for expending. I am one of those who believe that Britons can carry on their own business far better than Government officials or bureaucrats in Whitehall. We have had too much in the last year of this kind of sloppy socialism. The Government Departments are digging themselves in. The other day, the First Commissioner of Works—I do not see him in his place—presented some Estimates. He has a huge staff swollen by the War. He covered the parks with buildings. He commandeered hotels, and then finding there was nothing for the staff to do, he suddenly, without a word to Parliament, launched out into a great house-building scheme. I cannot understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer consented to it. I see the Minister of Food is in his place. I understand his Ministry is being wound up. If that is not the case, may I say at any rate it has outlived its usefulness. As regards the Transport Ministry, transport in this country has never been so bad, and never so inefficient. [An HON. MEMBER: "It ought to be scrapped, and the Minister as well!"] Then there is the Ministry of Labour. That is another War creation. I say with the utmost deference to my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, there has been too much meddling by the Government with labour. In the old days we had far fewer strikes; the Government appointed an arbitrator when asked to do so. Now questions art; asked here. Labour Members are continually running in and out of Downing Street at a time when, in my judgment, the Prime Minister and the Government have other and more important matters to attend to. The latest development of Government activity is a Mines Department. I have a strong complaint against the Mines Department inasmuch as it seduced from these Benches the most picturesque figure that adorned them.
I do not like these Government Departments. The greatest social reform that can be undertaken in this country is to reduce the cost of living, to reduce the taxes, and to reduce the rates. The housing policy of the Government is founded upon an entirely false basis. It has killed private enterprise. You cannot kill a thing twice. It has prevented private enterprise from again raising its head. Houses are built regardless of expense. Before the War a house cost from £200 to £250; to-day the cost is five times as much. These houses are costing £1,000, or £1,250. They cannot be let at economic rents. No workman can pay the rent. Where is the balance to come from? It is to come from the taxpayer. When you have burdened the taxpayers, as they have been burdened during the last five years, it is no wonder that a collapse has come in regard to Housing Bonds. A day or two ago seven towns asked for £4,000,000. The public subscribed £371,000. The public have not the money. You are taxing them too high. You are rating them too high. What to me is a grave matter, industry has to compete with municipalities in paying high rates of interest before they can get money to carry on their work. It is a very serious thing for industry that they have to offer such high interest for accommodation at the present time. What can you expect if the Government is on all hands offering new security. The Health Minister is undismayed. He goes on. He brings in another Bill. He brings in the Ministry of Health Bill, which we are to discuss in a few days, and against which I shall vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are too late."] Well, I do not think the Bill was worth sitting up all night for.

Dr. MURRAY: Why were you not here to vote against it?

Mr. LAMBERT: I voted on the Second Reading.

Dr. MURRAY: The acid test of economy is to be here to vote.

Mr. LAMBERT: I should like to call attention to a memorandum issued by the League of Nations. They say:
Nearly every Government is being pressed to incur fresh expenditure daily on palliatives which aggravate the very evils against which they are directed.
That is a true statement of the case. When we are endeavouring to palliate these evils or to carry out these schemes of social reform we are inflicting more hardship upon the population than we cure. There is another matter to which, from the financial point of view, I take strongest exception, and that is the indefinite liabilities caused by these efforts at Government legislation. Take the housing question. Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any Minister tell us what the housing question is going to cost the country 2 Have they any idea at all? Take the Agriculture Bill. Here you have a perfectly indefinite liability. Three commissioners are to be appointed, and at their fiat the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have to pay millions of pounds. Assuming that corn goes down Is. per quarter below the minimum price fixed by these commissioners, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to pay £1,750,000 a year. It can easily go down 10s. Where would my right hon. Friend's Budget be if he had to find something like £17,500,000 for this purpose as a subsidy for wheat, etc.?

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Raise it by the Excess Profits Duty.

Mr. LAMBERT: Take Ireland. In Ireland they grew 1,500,000 quarters of oats. If the price of oats goes down Is. per quarter you will have to pay the Irish farmer £375,000 a year. If the price goes down 10s. a quarter you will have to pay £3,750,000. How many officials do you think you will have to appoint in order to check these returns? Has anybody any idea of it? These are the reasons why I object to this finance, against which, I am perfectly certain, the soul of Mr. Gladstone and former financiers would have revolted. We have no definite end to our liability.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: What about education?

Mr. LAMBERT: Everything in its turn. So far from this large Government expenditure relieving the food position it aggravates it. We have to import an enormous quantity of food every year or we starve. This year probably we shall have to import 80 per cent, of the bread we eat. Eighty loaves out of every 100 will have to come from abroad. That wheat that comes from the foreign far-
mer will have to be paid for, and it can only be paid for with British goods. It is no use offering them Bradburys. This enormous taxation that you are putting on is actually crippling the manufacturer, who would be prepared in other events to export British goods to pay for the wheat which we must have. This taxation is a potent ingredient in the cost of every article. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a sleeping partner in every business. He is a sleeping partner for profits, but he is not a sharer of losses. Every business man has to make an estimate, and, of course, he must take taxation into account in running his business. If he cannot put the taxation on to the product then he will not produce. Taxation to-day is threatening to ruin industry. By this taxation the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I do not speak of him personally; I have very great respect for my right hon. Friend—is really hindering development. Every business man knows that if you want successfully to develop your business you must put part of your profits back into your business every year. It cannot be done to-day. The tax collector is too hard on them. The Government factor is usually sterile in production. There is hardly a single man or woman engaged by the Government, paid by the Government, who is producing a single article that can be exchanged for the wheat which we must have. Therefore, I ask for a stringent reduction of expenditure. When I advocate a reduction it is not to spare the pockets of the rich, but really it is to prevent the poor from hunger. It is a working man's question, for if capital is not available employment cannot be obtained.
Do not let the House disguise from themselves that there will be great difficulties in effecting economy. The Government will require all the support that the House can give them. The Government officials are in their dug outs, and they are not coming out easily. It will require a great deal of high explosives to get them out. I hope we shall apply some of that this evening. I hope I am not infringing the Official Secrets Act when I say that I remember the time when we were pressed to reduce expenditure at the Admiralty. I remember Mr. Runciman and Mr. McKenna coming over to the Board and they proceeded to go into figures. They had not been there
five minutes before they got mountains of figures, under which they were practically smothered. The Prime Minister is a much more astute diplomatist. He came over to the Admiralty and addressed the Board. He said, "Will you be good enough to reduce your expenditure; you alone can do it." We did it. The House of Commons cannot reduce the expenditure. It must be done by the Departments themselves. It can only be done in the Departments by rationing them and telling them how much they can spend. A good deal of criticism has been levelled at the figure in my Motion. It is not my figure. We have had several figures of expenditure. The first was given by the present Leader of the House at £650,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in April, 1919, estimated the expenditure at £766,000,000 for a normal Budget. In October the figure which I have taken a year after the Armistice was estimated at £808,000,000. Last June he made another estimate of £1,029,000,000. The unfortunate part of these estimates is that they are always rising. I have taken the middle one. What does £808,000,000 mean? Debt reduction and interest will cost £360,000,000, pensions another £120,000,000, making £480,000,000. That leaves £328,000,000 for running the country, which cost before the War just under £200,000,000. The £200,000,000 included the debt, therefore that is all to my advantage. Here you have the debt and pensions paid for and you are left with £328,000,000 with which to run the country, whereas before the War it cost less than £200,000,000, including provision for debt reduction and interest.
I have a letter here, a very able letter indeed, from Mr. Edgar Crammond, who wrote to the "Times" on 13th November. He said:
I am convinced that this country cannot afford to spend more than £800,000,000 on Imperial services in the coming year, and every possible effort should be made during the next five months to compel the Government to recognise this fact.
That is the opinion of a distinguished economist. Let me take the latest Estimate of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, £1,025,000,000. Does he think that the taxation he imposed this year will bring in so much revenue in future years as he has estimated for this year? I think it is quite impossible. Let me give the
House some figures. In 1913–14 Customs and Excise, that is, the taxation of beer, spirits, and cigars, brought in £75,000,000. This year the Chancellor expects to get from it £350,000,000. Does he really believe that when the taxation is five times heavier he is likely to get that revenue during the lean years that must come? Take Income Tax, Death Duties, and Corporations Tax. Before the War there was, of course, no Corporations Tax. From Inland Revenue, before the War, that is, Income Tax and Death Duties, there was received £88,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipates the receipt this year of £590,000,000. In other words, from the two sources I have named, the revenue before the War was £163,000,000, and today the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to get £940,000,000. I do not believe it is possible. Hon. Members say to me, "But suppose there is an emergency?" I reply, "Yes, suppose there is an emergency and that you have spent up to the hilt in the time of peace?" I am not a pessimist. I believe that Englishmen never do better than when they have to face facts. I believe that £808,000,000 is all that the country can afford. My object in moving the Motion is to show that the House of Commons must not nibble at a reduction of expenditure by thousands or hundreds of thousands; the expenditure must come off in chunks of tens of millions; and it is because I think we must set some limit to the expenditure of the Government and the Departments that I bring my Motion forward.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to second the Motion. We have heard from my right hon. Friend a very exhilarating speech. I second the Motion as one of the two Members associated with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Greenock ^Colonel Sir G. Collins) some four years ago, and was responsible with him for the appointment of the Committee on National Expenditure, on which I have had the honour to serve continuously from that day to this. I understand that this Motion has in some quarters been interpreted as a vote of censure on the Government, and more particularly as a personal and political attack on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I desire to repudiate that with all the vehemence I can command. I believe it is intended, I hope it is intended, I cer-
tainly mean to speak to it as though it was intended, not to weaken but to strengthen the hands of the Government; and more particularly do I want to repudiate any suggestion of a personal attack on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I have always regarded as a very good man struggling with adversity. I will not particularise who the adversity may be, but he has struggled very hard. I will go a great deal further than that. If this Motion were to be interpreted at all as a vote of censure, I consider that it would be a vote of censure less on the Government than on the House of Commons itself. As a fact, we are suggesting nothing of the kind. This Motion is the outcome and expression of an overwhelming and insistent public sentiment, which is deeply aroused to-day and very gravely alarmed at the position of our national finance. That alarm, as I have reason to know, is most acute in quarters that are best informed. It is only the ignorant who are careless in this matter. Those who know the facts most intimately have uttered the most grave warnings again and again. This House would be quite unworthy of its traditions and of its place in the national economy if it refused to heed those warnings and to reiterate and emphasise and endorse them.
What is the real source of these alarms? I think I can put it in a sentence. It is falling trade and diminishing production. That is the portent which inspires this widespread and deep-seated alarm. Most Members of this House, or many of them, are business men, and they are quite as familiar with the facts as I am, but there are many outside the House who are not familiar with them. Let me call attention to the very serious figures of our falling export trade, on which, as my right hon. Friend has truly said, the whole internal prosperity of this country very largely depends. I have here a long list of exports, but I will not trouble the House with it in extenso. The cumulative evidence of these figures is overwhelming. Contrast not the values, which are misleading, but the quantities of goods exported in 1913 and 1919 respectively. The exports of pig-iron fell from 1,124,000 tons in 1913 to 356,985 tons in 1919. The exports of galvanised sheets also fell greatly during the same period. The total exports of iron and steel, and manu-
factures thereof, fell from nearly 5,000,000 tons in 1913 to 2,223,000 tons in 1919. Machinery fell from 746,000 tons in 1913 to a little more than 303,000 tons in 1919. Hardware fell from 1,000,000 cwts. in 1913 to 285,000 cwts. in 1919. I might go through the whole list, which shows the same sort of reduction. I submit that though the figures of one trade here or there may mean little, yet the force of this cumulative evidence is simply overwhelming.
What does this decline in our export trade portend? It portends three things. In the first place, perpetuation of inflated prices and the high cost of living, and on that point I desire to associate myself with every word that fell from the Mover of this Motion. It portends, in the second place, a very grave depression of home industries and above all a growing volume of unemployment. I am certain that we shall have no real settling down in our social affairs in this country until we get a very substantial reduction in the cost of living. That is a matter which affects all classes and every individual. It affects more particularly the sort of folk for whom I am particularly privileged to speak in this House If you take a community like that which I have the honour to represent, a community which in the strictly economic sense is not a productive community-I hope and believe that we do make a modest contribution to a commodity which possesses some value though it cannot be measured in a material sense-you will find that for the most part the citizens of a city like Oxford are people of very modest means, living on incomes which if not actually fixed are not elastic. But in this respect all consumers are in the same boat, and nobody in any class is not a consumer. We shall never get a real settlement until we get prices down, and we shall never get prices down until we get the level of production up. Until we get production up we cannot deal in any way drastically or radically with the problem of unemployment. It is impossible to increase production so long as that production is hampered and borne down by the present level of expenditure.
I venture to bring to the attention of the House a passage in a resolution which, I believe, has been already forwarded to the Government, from the executive of the Imperial Commercial Association, a
very representative body, closely in touch with the facts of the economic situation. The resolution says:—
The present financial position is wholly due to the over-expenditure of public money, both on the part of His Majesty's Government and by local authorities throughout the country. Our industries are being slowly but surely incapacitated, and in many cases destroyed, owing to the extreme measures which restrict credit and render the financing of large enterprises impracticable. This policy is followed by unemployment and acute industrial distress.
5.0 P.M.
I think there is some exaggeration in the terms of that resolution, and I want frankly to say so, but I hold also that there is sufficient truth in it to justify the Motion which is now before the House. The Motion asserts the necessity of restricting our annual national expenditure to a definite sum. The sum which we have taken is the sum calculated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and set forth in detail in a White Paper issued in October, 1919. It is only fair to the Chancellor to say that that Paper only professed to contain a very tentative Estimate. It was an Estimate of a normal year, and we were warned very definitely and very explicitly that the year 1920–21 would not be, and could not be, such a normal year. Further, we were told that a normal year would be one in which the following conditions were fulfilled, and it is only right to recall those conditions:
(a) That all war services will have ceased and that trading departments (such as food and shipping, etc.) will have been wound up; (b) that all subsidies (bread, railways, unemployment donation, etc.) will have been withdrawn; (c) that no further loans will be made to Allies and Dominions; (d) that the training schemes for ex-soldiers will have been completed and nothing new arisen in their place; and (e) that the cost of labour and materials will not have differed materially from that now obtaining.
Those are the conditions laid down by the Chancellor himself, but he himself, despite those very cautious limitations, issued a further Estimate in June, 1920.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: And that no further expenditure would be sanctioned by the House.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I am quoting from the printed Paper issued by the Chancellor himself, and that is not specified in it. He said it, I think, in a speech. Then we had a revised Estimate in June, 1920, of this very tentative Estimate issued
six months earlier. That revised Estimate was based on precisely the same assumption as the earlier one, and the House will remember that there was substituted for the figure of £808,000,000 the figure of £1,029,000,000. I venture to recall to the remembrance of the House those two Estimates with a difference of £200,000,000 between them. I prefer the earlier one of £808,000,000, but I wish to say very emphatically, and, of course, I am speaking only for myself, in my opinion, the real point of importance and the principle which I hope the House tonight will affirm is that, whatever may be the sum, we should have a specific sum. Speaking for myself, I am not particularly wedded to the sum actually mentioned in the Resolution. In other Resolutions other sums are mentioned, and they may be nearer to the mark, but the essential point is that the House should give the Treasury a specific line to work to, and that the business community outside the House should know what that line is and should lay their plans accordingly. What really is alarming, and, I venture to say, paralysing, the whole business community to-day is the uncertainty of the immediate future. They see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all the expert advice and knowledge at his command, in October, 1919, putting his figure at £808,000,000, and they see him six months later putting the figure at over £1,000,000,000. What will the figure be in April, 1921? They want some security and some certainty.
How are we to get the reduction recommended in our resolution? There are two schools among the critics of swollen Estimates. There are those who say that economies must be effected in detail by the saving of a shilling here and a sixpence there. On the other hand, there are those who say, with my right hon. Friend who moved, that nothing can be done unless you are prepared to reduce the big items of expenditure, and that this attacking of the big items is not a departmental matter, that it is not even a Treasury matter, that it is not even a Cabinet matter, and that it can only be done, and I believe it can only be done, by a deliberate policy sanctioned and sustained by the House of Commons. I believe at the present juncture both those schools are right. I believe also that the first course will prove insufficient for our necessities, not that I am disposed to under-rate what are called petty
economies. I remember very well, and I have often recalled, the words of Mr. Gladstone, which were spoken on this matter, appropriately enough to a Scottish audience. He said:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer should boldly uphold economy in detail. It is a mark of a chicken-hearted Chancellor when he shrinks from upholding economy in detail. He is ridiculed, no doubt, for what is called candle ends and cheese parings, but lie is not worth his salt if he is not ready to save candle ends and cheese parings in the cause of economy.
I think there has been too little regard to candle ends and cheese parings in public Departments during the last few years. It so happens that it has been my business to scrutinise very closely and continuously the expenditure of our public Departments, and I think, and I state my conviction deliberately, that there has been a great deal too little regard paid to these candle ends and cheese parings. For example, it seems to me the scale of war bonuses at present being paid is ridiculously and extravagantly high. Boys of 16 to 17 who go into the Civil Service at what I should regard at an adequate salary of £60 per year are receiving a war bonus of £93 per year, or a total of £153. Young men of 18 and IP who go in with the salary of £100 are receiving a war bonus of £148, a total of £248. I do not know whether the House saw the other day a letter from an old friend of mine, now chairman of one of the most important insurance companies in London, in which he pointed out that no bank and no insurance company would offer salaries to boys and girls and youths on that sort of scale. If they do not do so, why should the Civil Service? Then another point is the travelling and subsistence allowance. It is a point which I am always inquiring into in Departments It is not a very large item, but it is one of those candle ends. I understand that the rule of the Civil Service is that first-class fare shall be paid to anyone whose salary is or will vise to £600 per year. I put it to the House, is there anybody else with a salary of £600 per year who travels about the country first-class? I say these sort of allowances for travelling and subsistence are on a scale unreasonably generous. But it is my deliberate conviction after four years' pretty hard work in the detailed investigation of departmental expenditure that many of the charges which we see brought against
public Departments are not warranted, and particularly not warranted as regards the older Departments of the State where the older and better Civil Service traditions survive. It is the new Departments which are in a new and less enviable category.
I have, however, arrived at the conclusion that whatever you do about these petty economies, which are not to be despised, they will not suffice and that you have got to attack not merely current expenditure, but the whole basis of expenditure. The great weakness of the Select Committee on national expenditure has been that over and over again we are brought up not against expenditure, but against policy into which we are not entitled to inquire. But what we cannot do and what we are not permitted to do this House can do and I submit this House ought to do. I fear I have already strained the patience of the House, but I do desire to ask the House to give their very grave consideration to this Motion before they decide to reject it. During these last two years we have been talking a great deal and we have been doing something with regard to what is called social reconstruction. I believe that the conviction is very fast forcing itself on most thoughtful people that in this matter of reconstruction we began at the wrong end, and that the basic foundation of all genuine reconstruction must be financial recuperation. You cannot have financial recuperation without very strict curtailment of public expenditure, but it seems to me that general professions, either on the part of individuals or on the part of this House in the cause of economy, are of very little use. Let me take one concrete illustration and I select it for a reason which I think the House will- appreciate, and partly in consequence of an interruption from an hon. Member, I believe the situation at which we have arrived is so incomparably grave that we have all got to be prepared to postpone the achievement of the objects for which we care most. I compare the very tentative Estimate of October, 1919, with the revised and still tentative Estimate, of June, 1920, and what is the largest single item of increased expenditure revealed by those two Papers. It is the cost of education which in the first Paper is put down at £47,800,000 (it cost about £19,000,000 before the War) and in the second Paper is put down at what
I can only describe as the colossal sum of £73,000,000. Members of the last Parliament will, I think, remember that there was no private Member in the House who did more to facilitate the passage of the Bill of 1918, I venture to claim, than I did myself. I believed in the Act of 1918 and I believe in it still and I hope to see it carried out in its fullest implications, but I am so convinced of the gravity of our financial situation to-day that I say, and say deliberately, that the more elaborate provisions of that Act ought to be not abandoned, but postponed, for a period of years, at any rate, until we have reached financial equilibrium.
I am fortified in this opinion by a remarkable pamphlet by one whose opinion on matters of education will not be questioned—Mr. Sydney Webb. He was estimating whether we could pay our way after the War and he said in effect that there was one thing in which we could not economise, that was education, but he put the total cost of education at a sum of £50,000,000 which is £23,000,000 below the figure estimated for the future normal year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Much as I believe in the social value of education, I do not think that we can afford to spend a sum like that in our present financial position. The house will agree that I, at any rate, cannot personally give a stronger proof of my sincerity and earnestness on this question of national economy than by my selection of this particular item. But what I am prepared to do in the matter of education I expect that other hon. Members will do in other items of policy or reconstruction in which they may be interested and I commend to their favourable consideration the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour. I hope earnestly that the House will assent to the Motion proposed by my right hon. Friend, and I hope further that the Government will not resist it, or if not this particular Motion then some amended Motion which will not be confined to pious hopes and evaporate in vague generalities but will really give to the harassed producer and the long-suffering consumer some definite and conclusive sign that at last in this matter of immediate and insistent importance this House is in real and deadly earnest.

STATEMENT BY MR. CHAMBERLAIN.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question raised by the Motion before the House is a grave one, and I am not sure that a still
graver question does not lie behind it in the events of the last few days, which have moved even so sternly reticent an authority as yourself, Mr. Speaker, to indignation. The Government is on its trial, but I think that something more is on its trial, and something greater than the Government—this House itself. The question is whether we are to be governed by ignorant, irresponsible clamour or by the Commons in Parliament assembled. For myself, I ask no fairer, no better tribunal than this House. It is to them, and them alone, that I am responsible for the discharge of my functions. As long as I possess their confidence and receive, as I have received, in full and hearty measure, the support and co-operation of the Prime Minister I will do my best to serve them.
My right hon. Friend who moved this. Resolution said he did not want an expression of opinion to-day, whatever it might be, to be a mere pious resolution, like the last resolution passed upon the subject. Why does he call it a mere pious resolution? Has he looked at the progress of reduction in expenditure? In 1918–19 our gross expenditure was over £3,140,000,000. In 1919–20 it was reduced to £2,106,000,000, but we were borrowing to make both ends meet. This year, apart from the provision for the redemption of debt, it is reduced to £1,282,000,000. We may not be proceeding as rapidly as my right hon. Friend would wish, or as the circumstances of the country require, but do not let the House be under the impression that immense progress has not been made, and that the Government are not as conscious as the House itself of the need for economy and for careful husbanding of our resources.
I promised, in answer to an hon. Gentleman the other day, that I would attempt to give some information on this occasion in respect to the financial situation of the present year, and not deal only with the future. I shall have to make, I am afraid, a considerable demand upon the patience of the House, but I believe that they will wish me to do so. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of anxiety—genuine and not unnatural anxiety—as to the prospects of the current year, and as to the extent to which the House or the country can any longer place reliance on the Budget estimates of revenue and expenses. There
has been, it must be admitted, a great change since the Budget was framed, and even since the Budget was presented, a great actual change, and, perhaps, an even greater psychological change. To the over-hopefulness, over-confidence, over-lending, over-borrowing, over-trading, and over-speculation of the earlier months of the year there has succeeded a reaction which, I think, has now tended to go too far in the opposite direction. There is a great and real change in the situation. Trade is stagnant. Orders are hard to obtain. Instead of fresh orders being placed, old orders are being cancelled. A feeling of anxiety and unrest is a natural consequence, and must affect the Budget estimate of revenue, and, in its ultimate consequences, the Budget estimate of expenses.

EXPENDITURE.

There will be, therefore, a great variation in detail from the Estimates which I presented. The Budget estimate of expenditure was £1,418,300,000, of which I think the House should remember that the big figure of £234,000,000 is not expenditure in the ordinary sense, but repayment of debt. The actual estimate of expenditure in the ordinary sense was £1,184,300,000, which included a sum of £20,000,000 for Supplementary Estimates to be presented in the course of the year. Supplementary Estimates have already been presented for sums required by the Civil Service over and above this amount to the extent of £10,000,000, by the Navy and Air Force to the extent of £8,000,000.

I pause for the moment to respond to the invitation of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert). With the knowledge of an old Admiralty hand he examined some of the Admiralty figures, and he said with perfect truth that there was no justification for the numbers employed in the dockyards to-day except the desire of the Government to mitigate instead of increase the problem of the out of work. That is quite true. It illustrates one of our difficulties. There are to-day, I think, 16,000 more men in the dockyards and 17,000 more men in the arsenals and similar establishments than there were before the War. For some of these men employment has been found on work which the dockyards or arsenals have contracted, so to speak, work for which they will be repaid. But even
so, when all allowance is made for that, the numbers are what they are, not because we want the men, but because we do not wish to increase the problem of unemployment in areas where it is already very great. My right hon. Friend was right, and the Government feel that we cannot continue indefinitely upon those lines, and though we are more reluctant than ever to increase discharges at present, we shall have to offer the men employed in these establishments the choice of further discharges or the acceptance by them of that system of partial employment which is being accepted in the great Lancashire cotton trade and, I think, in the great Yorkshire woollen industry. If they will co-operate with us in that we will maintain the number now employed. We might even be able to add to them. If they do not co-operate they cannot expect the taxpayer to go on indefinitely paying workmen for work which he does not want.

I interrupted my statement a little to deal with that point. These Estimates are already before the House. In addition, the House is aware that there will be an Army Supplementary Estimate for a sum only just short of £40,000,000. Of course, the detailed explanation of that Estimate will be given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War when he defends it in Committee, but I can give a broad outline at once to the House if they desire to have it. Of this sum of £40,000,000, £18,000,000 is due to terminal charges of the War, such as payment to prisoners of war, maintenance of the Assyrian and Chaldean refugees, and payment for supplies—I think £10,000,000—received from India during the War which have only now been brought to account. That is £18,000,000, as much a part of the cost of the War as the £8,000,000,000 of National Debt. £16,000,000 is due to the disturbed condition of the Middle East, which has prevented a reduction of forces contemplated in the Estimates and has even necessitated a temporary increase of the troops in Mesopotamia.

Mr. FRANCE: Why were these not in the Estimates of the War Office?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Because the disturbances which necessitated the additional troops had not taken place, and were not contemplated, and could not
have been foreseen when the Estimates were framed. There are £2,000,000 for services retransferred from the Ministry of Munitions to the War Office, which must be revoted, but are no additional charge to the taxpayer, and £2,000,000 or more due to the condition of Ireland. Altogether, therefore, to the original Budget provision you must add £58,000,000. On the other hand, there are reductions which come as a set-off. Reductions have already been made to the extent of £8,500,000, and further reductions are anticipated within the year in the Estimates as presented of £52,000,000, altogether £60,500,000, as against the £58,000,000 of additional expense. Practically, you may say that the savings made or in sight afford a set-off to the additional expenditure which we have had to incur. The general result, as the House will see, is that the Budget total is practically unaffected up to the present time, but there may be, and I think there must be, some additional charge as the result of unemployment and of the steps which we may be called upon to take to deal with it, and there may be additional charges as a result of the coal strike and the loss of railway revenue which that involved. So much for the expenditure.

REVENUE.

On the revenue side, the Budget Estimate was also £1,418,000,000. Again there will be very considerable variations under the different heads, but I am advised—and it is the best information I can give to the House—that there is at present no reason to anticipate that the revenue which I expected will not be collected. I think that the year will end with between £200,000,000 and £230,000,000 or £234,000,000 for the redemption of debt. Substantially, my anticipations are likely to be realised, but there will be less for the redemption of floating debt, and that for a reason, amongst others, which I think the House will appreciate, that we are getting less from the sale of new Savings Certificates than I had allowed for. They fell off very much in the early part of the year, and if we have bad trade it cannot be expected that they will amount to the old figure. Moreover, as the House knows, I have agreed that one-half of the new money should go to helping housing funds, and will not therefore
be available for debt purposes. I believe that the House will be reassured to know that, on the best review that my advisers and I can make at this stage, and subject to the inevitable uncertainties of the months which have still to run, we believe that the Budget which they were asked to sanction, and did sanction, will substantially realise the expectations that were then put forward.

Last year, in spite of the fact that we were forced to additional borrowing at home, we repaid £86,000,000 of foreign debt, and in the current year we shall repay something over £90,000,000 of foreign debt, including obligations in the United States, in Canada, in Japan, in Holland, in the Argentine, and in Uruguay. In part as a result of this repayment of debt, there has been since our financial year began a noticeable improvement in our exchange position with the Argentine, Uruguay, Spain, Holland, Norway, and Sweden, markets of no little consequence to the people of this country. The American exchange at the moment is less satisfactory, but it must always be remembered that the American exchange is liable at any time to be affected by the continental demand for dollars, and it is not necessarily at any given moment a true criterion of our own standing and credit. It is not an Anglo-American exchange, it is a European-American exchange, done over and through the London market and the great financial resources of this nation.

If the picture which I have drawn, and the account which I have given, is realised, need we be gloomy? No other country can show the parallel. My right hon. Friend quoted from the report of the League of Nations. They had the Budget statements of I know not how many countries, but in all Europe there is only one besides ourselves that is paying its way, and that is Denmark. Denmark is the only other which has presented a Budget with a balance on the right side. The United States of America itself is not secure of a balance in its Budget. If we can pay off £230,000,000 of our" debt, including £90,000,000 of our foreign debt, we shall have achieved a great result which justifies even the great sacrifices for which at my invitation, the House called.

Sir F. BANBURY: Do not £300,000,000 come from the sale of stores?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They come from the general revenue of the country.

Sir F. BANBURY: No, from capital.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not very convenient that my right hon. Friend should renew a very old argument in the middle of a new statement, but since he renews it, he brings me to a point to which I shall have to recur later. It is sufficient for me to say that the accounts which we present to Parliament are cash accounts. We do not have a capital account, except to a very small extent, and if it be true that what you may describe as capital is brought into revenue on the one side, what is equally capital is charged to expenditure on the other side. May I now proceed with my statement.
I want to say a word to the House as to the policy of the Government in regard to debt redemption and to deflation. I have sternly set my face against further inflation starting a new cycle of increased costs and increased wages, but I have felt all the time that any sudden deflation on a great scale would produce a crisis as surely as and more quickly than a continuous steady inflation. My policy, therefore, in that respect is to avoid renewed inflation and, if it be in any way possible, gradually, very gradually, to deflate as opportunity offers, and as the conditions of the time permit with safety; and as regards debt reduction, my policy has been that when we could redeem debt, we should redeem all the debt that we could, just because I saw that the good times would not always last and that we must try and lighten the load before the bad times came upon us.
I think the House will see that this statement, though it travels rather wider than my right hon. Friend's motion, is yet germane to an examination of the general financial position of the country and the policy of His Majesty's Government. What I have said in regard to deflation has a bearing upon the policy of funding, on which I have often been questioned. It is not possible to raise money for funding the Floating Debt on the scale on which loans were raised during the War. In the first place, the money that was contributed to the Government in the loans was first, so to speak, printed by the Government at its press. The Government created the money, and paid out the money, which was subsequently
loaned back to it. In the second place, there was at that time, practically speaking, no other demand on the money market. New issues of other kinds there were practically none, while now after the War comes all the rush of industrial enterprise requiring new capital, come Dominions and foreign countries seeking the help that they have been accustomed to find from our money market, and comes some-thing else which I have to consider even more closely, and that is the finance of local authorities which are engaged in finding money, not only for the works of public health and utility which were held up during the War, but also to carry out the programme of housing which is a necessary condition of industrial development and of social stability. Any attempt by me to fund on a considerable scale in the circumstances of the present moment, would, I think, obviously destroy the success of all those local issues. If it were successful on a large scale, it would produce a sudden deflation, which, I think, under present conditions, would be dangerous. That is the reason why I have not attempted to carry out, or even to propose, any considerable funding operations at the present time.
To return for a moment to the redemption of Debt—and I do this because the figures I am going to give to the House are of importance to my subsequent argument—I have said my idea was to pay off the maximum of debt while you can, but there is a minimum which you must meet in any one year, and I put it this year at £160,000,000. That is made up of statutory sinking funds and depreciation funds to the extent of £35,000,000, and all obligations of the State tendered in payment of taxes which we are obliged to redeem to the extent of £75,000,000—making £110,000,000 together. Then this year I put aside £50,000,000 for the repayment of matured debt. Next year there is £140,000,000—I am talking in very rough figures—of maturing debt; I think about £70,000,000 of foreign debt, and £70,000,000 maturing in this country. A portion of that, no doubt, will be re-borrowed. Some portion must be paid off, but for the mere purpose of meeting your statutory sinking fund and depreciation, and of redeeming the obligations, you must start with a minimum of debt reduction of £110,000,000 when you sit down to make a Budget. I have said all—I think not too much—but all I desire
to say to the House as regards the prospects of the present year, and as regards the policy which we have been pursuing in the matter of debt reduction.

DEPARTMENTS AND SERVICES (LIQUIDATION).

May I ask the House for a moment to consider what progress has been made in the liquidation of Departments and of services which were created during and in consequence of the War? Thirteen Departments have already been altogether closed. Of 90 trading accounts arising out of the Vote of Credit, 56 have been already closed, and 14 are being closed as rapidly as they can. All subsidies will have stopped by the end of the year—the bread subsidy, the coal mines subsidy, the railway subsidy, and the subsidy for the postal service. By the end of the year all subsidies will cease. [HON. MEMBERS: "Housing?"] War subsidies.

An HON. MEMBER: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the financial year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I mean the financial year. I turn to the consideration of what possible further steps the Government can take in the future, and here I beg the House to remember what our Estimates are and what is the system of accounting in accordance with the practice of this House. In the first place, the House must remember what I said a few moments ago in reply to an interruption by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, that the accounts which we keep are cash accounts, with very minor exceptions, where legislative sanction is taken to borrow a particular sum of money and charge a particular expense to the sum so borrowed, and if your current cash expenditure is brought to charge for capital outlay. For instance, in the present Estimate there appears the sum of £36,000,000 for loans to Allies. There appears a sum for Export Credits. All that money ought to be recoverable, but it is presented to Parliament and charged in the accounts of the year as if it were current expenditure on current account. In the second place, in the case of the Post Office, there is brought into account, not the profit or loss made by the Post Office, but the whole expenditure and revenue, so that both sides of the account are swollen by a sum of £50,000,000. When you talk of the sum raised by the taxpayer, or the sum paid by the tax-
payer, you are including in the sum paid the £50,000,000 contributed by the users of the Post Office service as payment for the services rendered
In the next place, we have in our Budget system no such distinction as is common in a good many other countries between the ordinary and the extraordinary expenditure. We do not have a Budget of ordinary expenditure and a Budget of extraordinary expenditure, but whether the expenditure is annual or continuous or whether it is wholly exceptional expenditure, like the case of the coal mines' deficiency, or the re-conditioning of hotels or other buildings taken over by the State during the War, and now given back to their proprietors, it is charged to the current accounts of the year. Lastly, every charge coming in course of payment must be met from the year's revenue, no matter when the charge was incurred. That is of some importance. It leads to widespread misconception as to what our actual expenditure is, and as to what is the cost of particular Departments, and it is a misconception which is not confined, apparently, to those whom one would have expected to entertain it, but is shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), who himself has been Chancellor of the Exchequer and who has himself been Prime Minister, and the payment of whose debts he now charges as an act of extravagance on the part of his successors. I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend is not here. I understand he is fulfilling another public engagement, or I should make complaint of his absence, because he has been up and down the country ranting about the expenditure.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that expression Parliamentary?

Mr. STANTON: As Parliamentary as you are.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand it is Parliamentary. Mr. Speaker will correct me if it is not. I confess I am sorry the right hon. Member for Paisley is not here to justify his statements, and, may I add, even his criticism. I say that every expense that has been incurred has to be charged to the year in which it is brought to account. For instance, the right hon. Member for Paisley tells gentlemen, who are assembled somewhere in Finsbury to listen to him, that the
cost of the Ministry of Munitions for the current year is £65,000,000. The true figure, I observe in passing, although it is not really my argument, is £31,300,000, and that should have been known to the right hon. Gentleman at the time when he spoke, if he had consulted the Estimates before the House. But of this £31,300,000, over £17,000,000 is in liquidation of war obligations. It is not current expenditure of the year. It is not extravagance which the Government ought to have prevented. It is the payment of war debt, and those obligations, I say again, are as much part of the war debt as the £8,000,000,000 which we borrowed. I may say, in passing, what the right hon. Member for Paisley did not think it worth while telling the people of Finsbury, that this Department is expected to produce for the country over £212,000,000 from the realisations which they are carrying out. Then the right hon. Member for Paisley proceeds to the Ministry of Shipping, which he says costs £21,000,000.' Mind you, these arc things which arc produced as illustrations of the extravagance of the Government. Of that £21,000,000, £19,500,000 is the liquidation of war commitments. Those two Ministries have been carrying out, under the supervision of Ministers who are themselves business men and who give their services to the country for nothing, with the help of other volunteers, themselves business men, many of them giving their services to the country, two of the most gigantic businesses the world has ever seen, and have carried them out with signal and conspicuous success. I think some words of appreciation of what they have done would have come better from my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister, and a Prime Minister during war-time, than a gibe at their expense. I come to the bête noir of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley. That is the Ministry of Transport, which the right hon. Member for Paisley says costs £1,500,000, but this time I am astonished at his moderation. If he had followed the practice he adopted in respect of the other two Departments, he would have added in the sums which are being paid to the railway companies. The true comparison—and my right
hon. Friend the Minister of Transport must have appeared small with his £1,500,000 alongside his
colleagues of the Shipping and Munitions Departments!—the true comparison, on the basis put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, should have been, not £1,500,000, but £24,500,000. The cost of administration and liquidation of the debt for the new activities of the Minister—whatever they are—is £300,000. Does the House think that is very extravagant? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley does He comes to us with the suggestion—and suggestions are always welcome—that in the early days of the War the Government took over the railways without the addition of a single man to the staff at the Board of Trade. He says:
The railway department of the Board of Trade, with the co-operation of a committee of railway managers and directors, took over the whole business, and dealt with it throughout the strain and stress of the War—on the whole very efficiently—dealt with it with a staff of 35 men.
What does this mean? Under the agreements made by the right hon. Gentleman and his then President of the Board of Trade, the Railway Companies collected or spent nearly £600,000,000 of the taxpayers' money annually. Our pre-War Budget was about £200,000,000, yet the right hon. Gentleman thought that the control of an annual expenditure of £600,000,000 could be safely left to a Department formed for wholly different work, without any of the experience necessary for this work, and comprising in all 35 men! What expert control did he provide for these huge financial transactions? In his own words: "Not a single man." He left it to the railway managers to safeguard the taxpayers—against their own shareholders!

Sir F. BANBURY: No.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Talk of setting the cat to guard the cream. What result do you expect? The result is that the railways have cost the Government £45,000,000 up to August without making allowance for the cost of Government traffic calculated at the full rate. That is what happened. It would be fortunate if it ended there, but there are, unfortunately, outstanding liabilities under these agreements which, on the basis of the interpretation understood to be placed upon them by the railways, may amount to £150,000,000. The House knows that the proper interpretation of these agreements is being considered by a Committee
under the chairmanship of Lord Colwyn. I invite my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean) if he will be so good, to convey to our friends the Member for Paisley and to Mr Runciman an invitation from the Government to attend that Committee, and to explain to its members the bearing of the agreements which they signed, and the estimate which they formed of the cost in which they would involve the country. These things may be good enough for Finsbury Park or Paisley but they are not good enough for the House of Commons

Sir F. BANBURY: rose. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in possession of the House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What happened was that my right hon. Friend entrusted this work to that small body of men without assistance-in fact, he gave them a blank cheque.

Sir F. BANBURY: You made a charge against me.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I made no charge.

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, you did. I am chairman of the directors—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my right hon. Friend thinks I made a charge against him personally, I will give way at once.

Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, personally, no!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley thinks this is an opportunity for economy What, in fact, he did in the way of economy was to give a blank cheque, and to leave his successors to pay the bill. Is it not time that we should have some expert advice upon these agreements and upon their effect—some expert examination into the claims which arose on them.

Lord HUGH CECIL: What is the use of recriminating?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite understand my Noble Friend's interruption. I am dealing with the charge that the Ministry of Transport described as "a grandiose department," with no functions to justify its existence—

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: None what ever!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: — is costing the country immense sums and rendering no service in return.

Mr. GRITTEN: A useless Ministry!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If it saves us some part of the liability of £200,000,000 with which we are threatened it will have earned its pay over and over again. So much for the past. We now come to examination—and I shall make it pretty brief—of the cost to be incurred in the coming year. We are invited to adopt a definite sum—

Mr. LAMBERT: Your own.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: And to name it as the sum to be fixed as the limit beyond which the Government will not go. I observe that there are two Budget suggestions. There is the anti-waste Budget for £600,000,000. We know something of an anti-waste Member. He begins by promising the impossible, and continues to support economy everywhere else, but urges lavish expenditure in his own constituency. There is my right hon. Friend's suggested Budget of £808,000,000. He says: "That is my Budget figure." My right hon. Friend behind me was fair and good enough to quote the conditions which attach to that Budget. Both my right hon. Friend and he were alarmed at the difference between the first sketch of a Normal Year Budget and the second sketch. Did any of them take the trouble to discover wherein the difference lay? Old Age Pensions have been increased by this House, also Health and Unemployment Insurance—I need not go into the exact items—but the biggest item of all is that whereas in the first sketch only £40,000,000 was provided for the redemption of debt, in the second one £180,000,000 was so provided. It is no good for my right hon. Friend to try to trap me with a normal Budget for next year. I told the House, and not only did I tell the House in general terms that the normal Budget went on the supposition that there would be no increased charges, but I told them that it would not be realised "this year, next year or the year after." That normal Budget estimate was only available for one purpose, and that is the purpose for which I presented it to the House, and explained it in the following words:
The value of the paper is that the House might understand that every time they sanction fresh expenditure they are upsetting the balance here shown. If they choose to sanction new expenditure they are rendering it necessary to impose additional taxation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: After you have spent the money.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Let us look at a few—a very few—figures which no one will challenge, which, indeed, are beyond all dispute. You must pay the interest, £345,000,000—I am dealing with, the current year—you must pay the other Consolidated Fund services—I exclude land settlement, but include local taxation —of £19,000,000; you must provide—for reasons I explained earlier—a minimum sum of £110,000,000 for the redemption of debt. Add to this Old Age Pensions and War pensions, and we have already exceeded the ante—waste Budget of £600,000,000. I go on to the Revenue Departments, including the Post Office, which will cost this year £60,000,000. The police, which will cost £12,000,000. Allow ourselves to fulfil our obligations to the men who have been insured in the schemes we have framed against ill-health and unemployment—£17,000,000; and provide the £35,000,000 required for the training of ex-soldiers, and their settlement on the land, and other purposes; add to all this an item which may be challenged but which cannot be rejected, £56,000,000 for education, and you are already up to the figure which the right hon. Gentleman invites the House to commit itself to as the total figure for next year's expenditure. There is nothing for unemployment, nothing to mitigate the crisis or the hardships that may arise from the slackness of trade, nothing for housing, no provision for a single soldier, sailor, or airman, and no provision for either the services or salaries of any of the other Civil Departments, except those in the Departments which I have specified.
What is the use of practical men sitting down to consider, as the financial scheme for next year, a budget of that description? That is not everything. Since I have mentioned the Civil Services and education, let me just say this: The cost included in the Education Estimates is not the result of the Bill of 1918. It almost entirely arises from increases of salaries. Let me again try to stop the repetition of the constant misrepresentation or misapprehension of people, not those in this House, but people outside, who speak as if £557,000,000 under the head of Civil Service expenditure were the expenditure on the Civil Service staffs. As a matter
of fact, the pre-War salaries of the pre-War staff of the Civil Service, excluding Industrials, as far as I could make out, cost £29,500,000. The salaries of the same people now, owing to the added cost of living and the general rise in salaries elsewhere, comes to £65,500,000. [AN HON. MEMBER: "For the same number?"] Yes, the same number, and the same rank, as near as I can estimate. The total cost of the whole service to-day is estimated at £86,000,000. If, therefore, you could discharge every single man in excess of those who performed the smaller functions required of Government before the War, the total saving you could make would be in the neighbourhood of £20,000,000.
I am not going to emulate either the anti-waste candidate or my right hon. Friend by presenting to the House at this period a Budget for the next financial year. I think that is not very practical. A more practical course seems to me to b-3 to tell the House as shortly as I can not only what the Government have been doing, but the resolutions they have taken, and the results which they will have within the course of the current financial year. My colleagues on the Finance Committee and in the Cabinet have been giving our financial situation, and the prospects of the coming year, the'r anxious and continuous attention. We are not less eager than any of our critics to secure for the country every economy that is possible. We are perhaps a little more conscious than some of them of the conditions on which our security, internal and external, depends, and working with that sense of responsibility, and with these limitations this, Mr. Speaker—if I may use the classic phrase, "For greater accuracy I have provided myself with a copy"—is the decision of the Cabinet:

FUTURE POLICY.

In pursuance of the policy of reducing national expenditure, the Cabinet are acting upon the following principles in preparing the Budget for the Financial Year 1921–22:

(1) General.—Whilst recognising that there are many reforms that are in them selves desirable in order to improve conditions in the United Kingdom, the Cabinet, having regard to the exceptionally heavy taxation which is the inevitable consequence of the War, the high
cost of material, the trade reaction that has set in, and the emergency measures required to mitigate the hardships of unemployment, consider that to the extent that such reforms involve further burdens upon the Exchequer or the rates, the time is not opportune for initiating them or putting them into operation It is an instruction, therefore, to all spending Departments that except with fresh Cabinet authority schemes involving expenditure not yet in operation are to remain in abeyance. This general principle applies to all spending Departments, but exception must be made, as I have already stated, for such temporary measures as are necessary to deal with the special problem of the unemployed.

Mr. BILLING: Does that mean that the municipal housing schemes are to be stopped?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The sums which can be saved by the above means would not amount in the aggregate to a very substantial figure, even if all those reforms were completely arrested. The only method of effecting a saving on a considerable scale is in the War Departments.
(2) The winding up of certain Departments created during the War. The Ministry of Munitions and the Ministry of Shipping will be wound up this financial year, and any outstanding functions will be discharged by other Ministers in other Departments. Legislation may be required for the purpose.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What about the officials?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The officials whom it is necessary to retain will have to be transferred with their functions to the Ministries taking over these duties.
(3) As regards the Food Ministry the liquidation of the Food Ministry has already made great progress. Twelve months ago the Estimates of the Ministry were £2,500,000. Six months ago they were £1,500,000, and now they have been reduced to £750,000. By the end of this month the Live Stock Organisation and the Regional Organisation will both have been wound up. Four-fifths of our commitments in respect of imported meat have been liquidated without disturbance to trade. It is doubtful whether it will be possible to complete the de-control of
both sugar and wheat within the financial year, but the Ministry of Food, as a separate Government Department, will cease to exist at the close of the year, and such powers as may still be found necessary will be transferred to another Department in accordance with the provisions of the Ministry of Food Continuance Bill.
(4) Military Expenditure.—The Cabinet are convinced of the necessity of curtailing military expenditure to the utmost extent compatible with the fulfilment of our Imperial obligations and national safety. The principal field for economy is in the Near and Middle East, and the position in these regions is being fully explored with a view to further drastic reductions of expenditure the moment the situation permits. The Government of Persia has already been notified of our intention to withdraw the last of the British force from that country in the coming spring. The force in Palestine is already in course of reduction. In Mesopotamia the aim of the British Government has always been to develop the resources of this region, to set up an Arab Government, and to replace the Imperial forces by an Arab army. In accordance with this policy the forces there had already been reduced from 222,000 men at the time of the Armistice to 79,000 men by June last, and were in process of further rapid reduction when the outbreak of a serious rebellion not indigenous but fomented from outside Mesopotamia, necessitated their reinforcement.
Even if the Government had decided to withdraw from Mesopotamia and leave the country to its fate, it is by no means certain that this course was possible as a military operation, and certainly it was not possible without heavy loss in life and stores. There was therefore no choice but to reinforce the garrison and to suppress the rebellion. This task has been almost accomplished. Simultaneously with the suppression of the remnants of the rebellion, Sir Percy Cox, the High Commissioner is actively engaged in the creation of an Arab state, and the Provisional Government is pressing forward the creation of an Arab army which will provide a substitute for the British forces. We hope that within a reasonable time an Arab Government will have taken over the administration and defence, the Imperial forces will have been reduced to a small
nucleus garrison, and Mesopotamia, a country with great potential resources, will be self-supporting.
(5) Naval Expenditure.—While determined to maintain the Navy at a standard of strength which shall adequately secure the safety of the Empire and its maritime communications, the Cabinet, before sanctioning a programme of new construction, are bound to satisfy themselves that the lessons of the War have been definitely ascertained, more particularly as regards the place and usefulness of the Capital Ship in future naval operations. They have, therefore, decided, and I am glad to say the Admiralty welcome the decision, that the Committee of Imperial Defence shall institute at once an exhaustive investigation into the whole question of naval strength, as affected by the latest development of naval warfare. They will present no programme for capital ship construction to Parliament until the results of this inquiry have been confirmed.
(6) Air Expenditure.—The utmost economy will be enforced in the administration of the air programme, and the position and function of the Air Force will be examined in relation to the Army and the Navy.
That is the present aspect of the policy which the Government has been pursuing, is pursuing, and if granted the confidence of the House, will continue to pursue, and I submit it with confidence to the judgment of the House.

Mr. CLYNES: The speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Motion were some answer to the question which some time ago was asked in the country as to whether Labour is fit to govern. Both those speeches were a record of the blunders and incapacity of the Government, of its waste and want of foresight, and they pictured the difficulties with which the nation is confronted as a result of the policy which has been pursued. Speeches of that kind are, I believe, some reply to the question which Ministers themselves have asked as to whether Labour is fit to govern. I can assure the House that Labour would not like to govern as this Government has governed, nor would it care to produce anything like the results described in the powerful speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution. I doubt
now whether, after the very lively answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Members of this House are very much enlightened, for he has left the question of finance substantially where it was. Certain economies, certain savings, certain promises are made, and so far as there is any substance in any one of those announcements, that substance is due, not to the initiative of the Government, not to any well-ordered plans or foresight on his part, but to public pressure and to the repeated demands which have been made in the last two years, particularly from this side of the House. The steps which halfheartedly have been announced to-day as steps which in the future, either near or remote, are to be taken, are to a great extent steps which effectively could have been taken, very much to the saving of millions of money, 18 months ago. I cannot therefore congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the case which he has presented in oposition to the Motion. At the same time, those for whom I speak cannot vote for such a Motion. It is not business, to say the least of it, to insert a definite figure of this kind at such a time as this and bind the Government, whichever Government it may be, down to that particular figure, and thereby prevent the necessity of certain expenditure which it might be wise and proper to incur.
I want to deal with some of the opening observations submitted to the House by the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. Objection has been taken to the Ministry of Labour on the ground of the cost, I suppose, which it incurs. The Ministry of Labour was not in the ordinary sense of the term a product of the War. It had been demanded long before the War. Labour, whether we like it or not, is changing in its relation to the State. There is an enormous body of legislation, an ever increasing number of Acts of Parliament, affecting industry, affecting millions of workers, affecting in the broadest sense of the term the general prosperity of the country, and it is an old demand that there should be a responsible State Department with a Minister answerable to the House competent to deal with questions which in the nature of things must arise in large numbers every working day of the year, and it would be folly to con-
clude that expense could be saved and economies could be effected by terminating the life of a Ministry of that kind or in any sense diminishing its power. It had its counterpart on the side of capital, or on the side of trade, in the existence of the Board of Trade created by a special Act of Parliament very many years ago, and if trade is to have its State Department and its special representative to look after its interests, depend upon it Labour will demand and claim the right to have a special Department to look after its interests also. I think it was nothing less than an unnecessary sneer on the part of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lambert) to refer to Labour leaders walking in and out Downing Street to discuss these Labour questions. What if they are not discussed? Is it better to fight them out than to talk them out? Does it mean that it would pay the country to ban Labour leaders in regard to any approach to any State Department, or even to the Prime Minister himself, who has been so frequently engaged in handling and settling these differences? There is certain expenditure which in the highest sense is State economy, and this is the kind of expenditure that we cannot afford to terminate.
I am glad to have heard the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that whatever they propose to save on it is not intended to try to economise m regard to insurance for unemployment. But I should like him to have gone further and touched on the topic of why, in face of the ever increasing unemployment, the Government has not taken some step specially to provide for those who are disqualified from receiving the benefits of the new employment insurance merely because they wore out of work and unable to pay the contribution at the time the Act came into force. I think the very fact that they were in that lamentable position of losing their wages gives them a prior claim even, if there is to be preference as between one and another, as those men who, according co the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have been kept in the dockyards employed upon uneconomic labour rather than that they should be thrown out of a job and therefore swell the ranks of the unemployed. This is not equitable treatment as between workman and workman, and if, as has been revealed, it is true that men are being kept on doing
work, at a loss evidently to the public and at a charge to the taxpayer, in one State Department it is not fair that the State should inflict this severe privation upon working men who happened to be out of a job at the time when the relief Act of Parliament, the new Insurance Act, came into force.
I suggest further that there is a bigger task before the Government in relation to this problem of the men out of work. No one need encourage or stimulate new and vigorous action on the part of men who are out of a job. They look at matters now very differently from before the War. I need not go into the case, but they do, and we must take note and learn by these experiences and lessons of what bodies of workmen will do, not recklessly nor thoughtlessly, not under a momentary impulse, but under the propelling force of organisation and direction. These men who take over town halls, libraries, and public institutions, deliberately prepare to do it. It is part of a plan naturally formed in the mind of men who see on the one side idleness with plenty, and yet in their own case idleness enforced upon them under a state of real service. I will not say a word to instigate any lawless and improper action on the part of these men, but I am rather drawing attention to a new aspect of the case of which the State must take note. I believe they can only regulate, check or prevent disorderly mob action on the part of these men by treating them individually as Britons expect to be treated who played the part that many of them did during the years of the War, and this will become State service the more employers of labour as private individuals fail to discharge that service. I do not blame employers of labour. I do not believe, as is asserted in some quarters, that employers of labour have deliberately restricted employment or thrown men out of a job in order to so depress the labour market as to enable them to pull down wages. I see no proof of that, and I cannot think so meanly of a fellow Briton, even though he be an employer, as to believe that he would go to that extreme for any mercenary purpose of that kind. I do not believe it. But the private employer under existing industrial and economic condi4ions clearly cannot keep in full employment these hundreds of thousands of men who are out of a job, and if the private employer
fails to find these men work naturally they turn to the State, and I regard it as a State duty, however extraordinary it may be, even though there is no precedent for it and no body of doctrine to justify it, yet it is a fact which I think ought to impress upon the Government the necessity of keeping these men out of mischief, if nothing else, by so organising a State service of work of real production as to turn these men from being what they are, a sea of waste, into being the producers of a bountiful supply of wealth of which this country is still really in need. If private employers of labour cannot find these men work they have an excellent and unquestionable right to turn to the State and insist that the State shall do more than merely hand out a small dole to them barely to keep them alive. This policy of doles is itself the worst evidence of the policy of waste of which to a great extent the Government has been guilty. I suppose by this time £50,000,000 of money must have been simply given away. We were not in such a state of affluence after the War as to be able to give away all that money for nothing, and yet it is done. It would have been far wiser and in keeping with that policy which this Government claims for itself of statesmanship to have spent that money upon productive work, and to have had results in the form of the wealth which would have been produced by the labour which could properly have been employed.
I should like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by way of further emphasising this, what is certain to be the result of this one substantial scrap of proof that there is in the announcements which he has made. He has told the House that we are going to save, I hope, very large sums in Army expenditure by bringing home men who have, too long in our judgment, been kept in foreign fields for military purposes. We are going to give some better opportunity to the people themselves to police or to arm these territories, and the soldiers will be brought home. They will be brought home to a market which is already choked with the unemployed. They will take their part in the unemployed processions, and they will very soon begin to ask, is it for this that they have fought and risked their lives abroad?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They are nearly all Indian troops.

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, but I am speaking of the men who will come back—the men who are on our fronts—the Britishers who in large numbers are still abroad in the many theatres of war, who will come back further to swell the ranks of the unemployed. Indeed, one of the reasons why the unemployed army in this country is giving us more trouble than ever is that it is an army in another sense. It is not only an industrial army. It consists very largely of the men who constituted the fighting forces, the military Army, and they have brought back some of the fighting spirit which they had to take to war for the purposes of defending their country against a foreign foe. It becomes all the more necessary to treat this question of unemployment in a new light, and to set aside any of the old barriers of economic doctrine which might have stood in the way of anything effective in the past. Another direction in which, before long, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find himself forced, is that of resorting to the plan—I only want just to mention it now—that has been very often suggested from this side of the House, the plan of securing some definite part of the store of capital in this country, of the total sum and stock of wealth in this country, for the purpose of giving relief to the overburdened taxpayer. This weight of taxation is for many trades and industries nothing short of ruinous. That has been fully proven in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer -this afternoon.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon Friend really will not help them by taking away their capital.

Mr. CLYNES: If the method suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not only this afternoon, but especially in his last two Budget speeches, is the method to save the country, why is there this sense of scare to-day? What of the outcry, what of the condition of ruin on which it is said we are bordering? If this plan of taxation for purposes of temporary relief is better than the one we suggest, how is it that these ruinous and scaring results have been produced? I suggest that even a resort to a capital levy upon such lines as have been suggested would have been less of a handicap to the trades and busi-
nesses and commerce of this country than this state of high taxation, which, evidently, for a long time must continue. I do not propose, on this occasion, at any rate, further to argue the matter, though there is a complete answer to the question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether they will be helped or hindered toy taking some part of their capital. Nothing will result, from any announcement in the speech which we have just heard, seriously to lessen the state of high prices which prevails, and which, in a very large measure, is a cause of this condition of unemployment. There are some workmen who believe that one way to find people work is to see that others do less of it. I do not believe that, and I submit that the experience of this year is a complete disproof of that delusion which is entertained in some labour quarters that, by doing less in one week or one year, you will be more assured of finding work for others. I do not want to argue this, but I assert that the whole experience of this year has completely proved my point. The year 1920 has been a year of low production, due to certain conditions of unemployment—whole in some cases, part in others—due to reduced hours of work, and to certain other changes in industry. From all of these causes the year has been one of low production, and we are finishing the year 1920 with the largest number of unemployed that we have had for many years past. If it were true that a state of low-production found work for other men, there would not be a single workman in this country out of a job to-day.
We ought to learn something from these lessons, and to seek to master some of those simpler and more elementary parts of the real laws of political economy. You must not, however, expect working men to believe the truth of those laws without assurances that they will not suffer, as they have suffered in the past, through the foolish, and, in some instances, dishonest, action of employers of labour. Working men who have worked hard and have increased output, got, as a result of their services, not increased pay; they were thrown out of a job altogether as the result of what they had done, and suffered reductions in wages. It will take many years to drive that bitter experience out of the heads of working men, and that is a matter in which the Government
might further co-operate with employers of labour in winning the confidence of workmen for this purpose of wealth production. Until you have gone far towards reducing prices, so as to bring the act of buying more within the power of the would-be purchaser, and thereby to give rise to a greater demand for the commodities which now stock our warehouses, and which create, in the case of the Lancashire cotton operative, the state of half-time under which he is now suffering—you cannot, until you have done these things, solve this recurring problem which burdens the life of masses of working men in this country. I agree that something may be said for saving in a small way, though in this matter of what may be termed petty economy not nearly so much can be saved as under the head of those huge items of expenditure relating to the fighting forces of the country. It is under those heads of expenditure that economies should be effected. The Army, the Navy, the Air Force, all these big spending non-productive Departments are the Departments to which Ministers should turn their attention; and they can only effectively turn their attention to them when more has been done in this country and in other parts of the world to create that certainty of world peace that will drive all these wasteful implements of war completely out of our minds. There are some Members of the Government who might under that head have done more to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I would just make one comment, as I feel a certain little personal interest in the matter, upon the announcement made this afternoon as to what is to be the near fate of the Ministry of Food. Frankly, I cannot say that I lament the disappearance of the Ministry of Food, in view of our experiences of the past half-year, for the Government has allowed it to do so little that its functions have been without any value whatever to the consuming public of this country. At least something effective and useful might have been done, in the interests of the consuming public, better to regulate and to lessen, in the case of certain items of food, the retail prices—the only matter in which the masses of consumers are really interested. We have had Acts of Parliament, which we sat up all night to pass, to deal with the profiteer. They rested upon the Statute Book, and were never
really effectively or vigorously put into operation. Few of the wrongdoers have suffered from legislation of that description. Unless a Ministry is to be allowed to have a policy, and to carry it through and be a real protector of the public, it is better to disband that Ministry and save its administrative cost to the nation. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food is not present to hear the announcement, but I do say that, in face of the impotency of the Ministry, and the failure of the Government to allow it to have a policy that would really protect the public in relation to prices, I do not lament the disappearance of the Ministry of Food.
I was very sorry to hear the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) say what he did on the question of education. I accept in all sincerity his statement as to his own regret at taking that side on such a question, for he himself has done so much to teach mankind that he ought to be one of the last men in the world to put any obstacle in the way of any of the poorer class of the country receiving the benefits of the best education that can be given. There is no State expenditure more worth incurring than this outlay upon educating the masses of the people, and I hope that the Government will revise that part of its plan of economy which falls under this head of education, and will turn a deaf ear to the appeals which have been made to save in what I would describe as this wasteful way. The condition is bad enough as it is. I do not complain of the headway that we have made in the last generation in the matter of education. Enormous strides have been made to meet the demands of the school-boy of to-day, as com pared with the conditions when many of us were lads and had little chance of any thing but the ordinary elementary schooling. Let us think in terms of the generation immediately ahead of us, and consider our duty to them. After a few years, when, as we hope, a state of peace will be really established, and the world turn; to its work, the battle will be between wits, brains, skill, efficiency, the ability of masses of people to produce. Are we to handicap ourselves in this competition for wealth and life by seeking now to save upon our educational system? We could pay no better premium for the future efficiency and skill of our people
than the money which this House only recently resolved should be paid for the purpose of attaining an improved educational standard. You cannot save by impoverishing the intellect of the people. You cannot gain by the continued ignorance of the people. Those are propositions from which, I hope, no man in this House will dissent. If there be any man who does dissent, he at any rate would claim not to deny himself any of the opportunities which can be derived from an educational system.
7.0 P.M.
Much improved as we are, let me give to the House one fact that will show how far we have yet to go. As I recall the figures, the position roughly is this. Taking every thousand persons between the ages of 15 and 23—the years in which education operates, the receptive years, the educational years—0taking every thousand persons between those ages in this country, only 100 are going to a school of any kind and getting any kind of educational instruction. You have, therefore, the great mass of the working classes, qualified to vote, qualified to organise in their trade unions, entitled to all the rights of a nation progressive in every other direction, and yet doomed to this state of ignorance, and reaching an age of maturity without ever, I may say, reaching an age of wisdom. It will not do, therefore, for us to be responsible, in this year or the next, for saving some few millions a year out of the enormous reserves of the country's wealth, at the expense of continuing that mass of dangerous ignorance which will go with us year by year until it is enlightened. Our position internally is extremely serious, and I am certain that the most cheerful of Ministers, whoever he may be, must have his moments of gloom when he turns to the immediate commercial, industrial, and economic outlook. The situation, it is not too much to say, is unusually grave, and yet enormous profits are being made in some businesses. Ten, 12, and 15 per cent, is still being offered day by day to those who have money privately to invest. I am merely stating facts. These comparatively large sums of interest are being offered in competition with the lesser sums which the Government can offer. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why the Housing Bonds and Government Bonds are not so attractive to the investors when they find they can get very much
better returns. The Government might well consider one side of this industrial problem in relation to these problems. The workman is expected to submit to what is termed his "minimum wage." Would it not be equally fair to require capital to submit to maximum profits? One of the most disturbing factors in the working-class mind is due to the spectacle of seeing these budgets or balance sheets of most prosperous firms telling not only of 20 and 30 per cent, profits, but of great bonuses and shares being doubled without a single further farthing being sunk into them. This is not a problem beyond the genius of the Prime Minister. He has faced strange questions before and new problems from which other men have turned away.

Mr. J. JONES: The Constitutional Club.

Mr. CLYNES: I suggest that the most effective way to kill two birds with one stone would be to fix a reasonable limit to the profits of capital, and thereby reduce this disturbance in the working-class mind and the anger which results from it, and incidentally reduce very greatly the prices of a great many articles and commodities which are far too high because of the great profits they have to carry. Let me, as I close, suggest to the Prime Minister that there is still one matter left unmentioned in all this Debate which very seriously turns upon the question of finance and upon trade. Ireland, India, Egypt, Russia, all have their place in this problem, and they all touch very closely the purse of the British taxpayer. They are not things you can detach and say they have nothing to do with the question. I was pleased to find both the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade recently asserting with great vigour that we must trade with Russia. We on this side of the House wish we had done much more to bring that about two years ago. We have lost enormously through these delays. These delays have produced problems in a more accentuated and disagreeable form. The sooner we can turn to trade with these big countries with vast populations the better it will be for us. We cannot afford the enormous sums which we are spending in Ireland. The Prime Minister within the last few days has had, I think, some opportunity to improve the tendencies towards a better
spirit in the handling of that pitiful Irish problem. We have as yet heard nothing definite, and seen no sign of anything but what is termed the policy of "1No Surrender." Ireland is costing us per month considerably more than £1,000,000. Hon. Members ought not to be so complacent or think in such terms about expenditure of that kind, for the sooner we can seize that outlook the sooner we will come to a settlement of the problem itself. If we went on spending that or a bigger sum under such a system of Government as now exists in Ireland, you would only finally end by exhausting your purse and having the problem still to deal with I hope this Irish policy will not be persisted in if for no other reason than its bearing upon this important question of finance.

Major O'NEILL: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment! He has talked about the question of Irish settlement. May I ask him why he and the party which he represents, when the Government of Ireland Bill was going through this House, did not make some attempt in the ordinary constitutional way to bring about an amendment of that Bill?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): That leads us a good way from finance.

Mr. CLYNES: If I may be allowed to answer the question definitely—we deliberately decided to take the course we did in relation to that measure for the reason that we could not regard it as offering any prospect whatever of settling the question, and in keeping with Labour opinion in Ireland, we decided on the course which, so far, we have assumed. I do not want further to transverse these points than to say it appears to us on this side of the House that we may go on month by month and even year by year pressing the Government to do certain things until the very things we have urged are forgotten, and then there comes a day in the House when a Minister gets up and announces that the Government have resolved upon the very plan that we have for so long been suggesting. Therefore, if it is true that we are a long time in making these suggestions for the better government of our country, it is also equally true that we never live long enough to get any credit for them. We have the satisfaction, however, of seeing
that if we are not in office we are in some position of influence in the counsels of the country, and that at long length some of the suggestions that have been made are bearing fruit. I ask the House seriously, in conclusion, to consider that this general question of finance is the one upon which all others hinge. Prices, unemployment, trade, a state of more peaceful mind among the masses of the people—all these things hinge upon the money problem. The worst aspect of all this problem is that it concerns us in this bitter part of the winter—I refer to the men out of work. I suggest to the Prime Minister that whatever else he may do in the saving of the money of the State or of the taxpayer, he ought not to stint a single farthing in helping the masses of the workers who are willing to work and produce wealth if permitted. At least help them to carry over the bitterness of the months that are ahead of us, no matter what the cost of that policy may be to the Government of the day.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words
realising that the reduction of national expenditure will tend to a diminution of the necessarily high cost of living and in order to secure a sound financial position with reduced taxation in the future, urges His Majesty's Government in preparing the Estimates for the coming year to reduce to the utmost extent possible the expenditure in all public services.
The House of Commons this afternoon has listened to a statement of first-class political importance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That statement I think will give satisfaction to this House, and the result of that policy will be felt in every home throughout Great Britain in the months to come. If I understood correctly the policy of the Government it is first to reduce our military commitments abroad. I hope the Prime Minister will pursue that policy even at the cost of estranging some of our Allies in the late War. The second part of the policy is to delay the building of capital ships in this country, and as I listened to the statement this afternoon it reminded me that perhaps in 1921 this country is going to have a naval holiday which was originally suggested by the present Secretary of State for War in 1912. The other side of the Government policy refers to social
legislation, and here their policy will cut across the pre-War mental outlook of some political parties. If I understood that policy aright, they are going to refuse to support any new scheme of expenditure. No Department is to be permitted to initiate any new scheme involving a new burden on the taxpayer. I am convinced myself that national economy can only be secured by a national method which will cut across the pre-War mental outlook of political parties, and the policy of the Government this afternoon seems to fit in completely with that point of view.
May I say one or two words in connection with the Resolution moved by the right hon. Gentleman who initiated the Debate this afternoon. It is quite evident to this House that the figure of £808,000,000 is an impossible figure. Probably no hon. Member thought it feasible, but there are many careless taxpayers throughout the country, and many householders whose hopes are being raised by the mere mention of such a figure. Their hopes are being raised because they think that by some possible policy the burden of taxation can be so reduced that our total expenditure need not exceed £800,000,000. The figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has quoted to the House show that the normal year which we all desire will not arrive for a few years yet, and so, in asking the House to examine our expenditure for a few minutes, allow me to say that I do not think it is really realised that 10s. in every pound of taxation, that is, 6d. in every shilling paid by way of taxation, is required this year to pay the interest on debt, the redemption of debt, and the cost of pensions. Practically half of our total expenditure this year is for these three services, and until the rate of interest is lower, and capital is plentiful, the yearly burden of the interest cannot be reduced. In the Estimates for this year there is also included a large sum for what I may call "Transitory Services." This includes subsidies, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us will be abolished at the end of the year, and which stand at £87,000,000. Loans to our Allies and Dependents stand at £36,000,000; the cost of the Ministry of Shipping at £17,000,000, and land settlement and demobilisation at £24,000,000. A total sum of £191,000,000 will automatically disappear at the end of this year.
In our expenditure this year there is a further sum which I may describe as the cost of social policy. The cost of that policy this year is £130,000,000. The Post Office costs £60,000,000. All the other Civil Services cost £123,000,000. That is the position to-day.
What will be the position in the year 1921? I ask the House to address itself for a very few moments to a consideration of what may be our estimated expenditure in the coming year. Interest on debt will remain about the same. The payments to local authorities and for road improvements—the total payments out of the Consolidated Fund will remain about the same. The cost of pensions this year will absorb £123,000,000. I think no one will begrudge that. The actual sum paid to pensioners is £109,000,000, but in the total there is a further figure of £14,000,000 required for hospital treatment and administration. In other words, for every £7 which is paid to the pensioner it costs the State another £1 for administration and hospital treatment. Can any economies be effected in that direction? Are there too many doctors employed? Are their fees too large? I understand the Ministry of Pensions has this matter under consideration, and I suggest the Government might direct their attention to that sum of £14,000,000, which has been paid out this year for hospital treatment and other forms of administration.
The statement delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer promises a modification in the cost of armaments. It is difficult for any private Member to gather definitely what will be the cost of armaments in the coming year. I should like, however, to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to certain items in our naval expenditure. He has referred to the dockyards. The wages in the dockyards amount to £10,000,000, with £5,000,000 for raw material. Memories are so short that people are apt to forget the historic surrender of the German fleet. The question I want to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, are all the seven dockyard towns necessary to-day-Portsmouth, Queenstown, Devonport, Chatham, Pembroke, Sheerness, and Rosyth. Will they all be necessary in years to come with the North Sea menace removed? In addition to the dockyard expenditure, contract work absorbs £10,000,000, and there is a further £6,000,000 for naval armaments. Then there is £2,500,000 for new
works, and a further sum of £10,500,000 for coal and oil fuel. This latter figure reminds me that during my younger days spent in the Navy we frequently lay for three months at anchor in port. What we lost in efficiency we gained in personal pleasure. The Navy might appreciate in the coming year a repetition of this very pleasant experience. The items I have just mentioned-dockyards, contracts, coal and armaments-absorb £44,000,000. In the estimate for the normal year the Chancellor of the Exchequer allocated £60,000,000 to the Navy. Should this figure be exceeded in 1921? I know the pay of the Navy and the keep will absorb £28,000,000, but I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that for 1921 it might be possible to reduce some items so as to bring the amount within the total for a normal year.
Turning from the Navy, let me ask the House to consider the Air Estimate. The cost this year is put at £21,000,000. This includes a sum of £5,000,000 for winding-up War charges. That, of course, is a non-recurrent charge, and it leaves £16,000,000 for the expenditure. In that figure there is a sum of £4,000,000 for works, buildings, and land. While referring to the subject of works, buildings, and land, may I suggest to the Government that their general policy for the coming year should be that no Government Department, whether it be the Army, the Navy, the Air Service, or the Labour Ministry, should be permitted to spend a single penny on any new building in the coming year. Let there be a complete cessation of new buildings by all Government Departments, except for houses for the working classes. In the Air Services we provide for 30,000 men. The total cost of the administration is nearly £1,000,000. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me that that figure for the administration of so small a force would appear to be excessive. May I make this suggestion to the right hon Gentleman? He is aware that the Ordnance Board, on which soldiers and sailors have sat for many years, has done very excellent work, but in view of the necessity of curtailing our commitments and reducing the staffs of Government Departments in London, would it not be possible for the Government to abolish completely the Air Ministry and place the Air Service under
the Army and Navy? The cost of administration is very great, and I suggest to the Government there might be some room for economy in that direction.
I have touched upon the Army, Navy and Air Services. I am glad the Government have decided to delay the operation of the Education Act of 1918 until a more opportune period. The time has not yet arrived for that Act to be put into operation. We all admit that higher education is a good investment, but we have not the money to invest. We must first take every available step, by Government policy and otherwise, to so lower the cost of living that employment will be given to our people in the coming year. I have referred to the General Services. I have pointed to the total cost of the Civil Services. I have endeavoured to show the cost of the Post Office and of armaments. The total cost of all other Civil Services this year amounts to £123,000,000. What is included in that total? Payments for roads, local authorities, Customs and Excise, and cost of police. Deducting these services, the total of the other Civil Services amounts to £83,000,000. There is an idea in the public mind that if every war-time Ministry were wound up, and if every official were got rid of, the economy effected would be an immediate and quick reduction in the burden of taxation. There is no truth whatever in such a statement. The total cost of salaries in these Departments represents a very small figure. But do not let the Government be diverted by that fact from the knowledge that public anger against officialdom is very great. The public knew and realised the disadvantages of officialdom during the War, and little by little they are turning away from their pre-War outlook and love of officials. I hope, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will steadily, cautiously and intelligently reduce the number of officials in all these Departments and try and bring them back at the earliest possible moment to pre-War standards. I have endeavoured very briefly and perhaps not completely to mention some of the broad channels of expenditure during the coming year, and having applied my mind and given much thought to the figures, I suggest it is quite impossible for the State, putting on one side the reduction of debt in the
coming year, to be run at less than somewhere about £950,000,000.

Mr. BOTTOM LEY: Make it a thousand millions.

Sir G. COLLINS: The chief items are:—



£


Interest on Debt and Pensions
470,000,000


Armaments
152,000,000

Mr. J. JONES: That includes Ireland?

Sir G. COLLINS: That represents a mere fraction. The total cost of armaments this year, excluding war charges, is £195,000,000, but with the policy enunciated by the Cabinet this afternoon, would it not be possible to reduce the cost of armaments in the coming year to £152,000,000? Let me continue my table—


Social policy
£134,000,000


This includes education, old age pensions, insurance and health. If the Government; refuse every demand for new expenditure, that item could in the next year be kept within £134,000,000. To continue the table—



£


Post Office (including Capital Commitments)
60,000,000


Other Civil Service
110,000,000


Supplementary Estimates
10,000,000


Some of my hon. Friends think there might be a still greater reduction on the charges for social policy. I am endeavouring to frame a moderate estimate. No one would be more glad than I to find that the figures could be still further reduced. The total estimate would thus amount to £945,000,000 for the coming year: say £950,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House earlier in the afternoon that we must find by taxation or otherwise £110,000,000 for the reduction of debt. That would give us a total estimated expenditure in the coming year of £1,060,000,000 and if that could be secured its effect would be at once felt in every home and in every business in this country. With a Budget of that magnitude the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to reduce taxation. What taxation should be reduced is a matter for the Government to consider.
There is another point to which I am anxious to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I spoke and voted in favour of the Excess Profits Duty in July. Conditions in industry have changed considerably since that date, and in the coming year we shall be required to meet the most intense competition that this country has ever experienced. Therefore, let every tax which hampers trade and every control which restricts industry be removed.

Mr. J. JONES: Including the Liquor Control Board.

Sir G. COLLINS: The arrears of Excess Profits Duty are rising rapidly. In 1919 they amounted to £164,000,000, in 1920£217,000,000, and in 1921, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate, the arrears will be £400,000,000. The House will note the rising figure, the sharp upward rise in the amount of the arrears of Excess Profits Duty. I appeal, therefore, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when reviewing his proposals for the coming year to take a bold course and to relieve industry as far as possible. Turning from the Excess Profits Duty, I am anxious to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the steps he has taken to limit the issue of currency notes. The Brussels Economic Conference and the Supreme Economic Council have urged all nations to avoid the multiplication of paper currency. It is considered by good judges that if the issue of our paper currency could gradually be reduced by £50,000,000, say, at the rate of £3,000,000 or £5,000,000 per month, the price of commodities would fall from their present level by 25 to 30 per cent. To secure that result a surplus of revenue over expenditure is necessary. By a reduction in our paper currency the individual who would gain most would be the wage-earning and the middle classes, and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry his own policy a step further in that direction.
The Government in their statement this afternoon announced that the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Shipping and the Ministry of Munitions are to be abolished. Let them also at the same time remove control from every industry Interference with industry creates uncertainty, and if there are very real practical advantages in the way of decontrol, let the Government pursue that policy step by step and
month by month in future. In moving the Motion which stands in my name I have endeavoured to show that the Resolution moved earlier in the afternoon would not commend itself to the judgment of my fellow Members. I have spent much time and labour, until illness supervened, in endeavouring to study the problem of national expenditure and to secure economy in public services. I commend the Resolution which stands in my name to the judgment of my fellow Members. This House during the last five or six years has faced with courage a grave situation. Let us maintain the same spirit in the days to come. It will not be by panic or by being driven by outside forces that this country will regain and maintain its proud position in the markets of the world. Let this House, therefore, facing abuse, facing misrepresentation and distortion of facts, realise that they are the custodians of the public purse and the guardians of the public wellbeing. Our ancestors so worked and planned that the people of Britain have weathered the gravest crisis in our history. Let the Commons of Great Britain at this time assembled so fashion the policy of His Majesty's Government that in the days to come it will be said of us that we were worthy of those who went before.

Lieut.-Commander HILTON YOUNG: I beg to second the Amendment. The House met to-day with a sense of very great gravity. Whether that feeling has been wholly removed by the important pronouncement we have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer I do not know, except that in my own case it has not been wholly removed. The sense of the gravity of the situation is so great and the emergency is so grave that some more definite assurance of an adaptation of policy to our needs is required than that which we have had. It may be looked upon as meaning much or as meaning little. In the first place, let us look at the pronouncement with respect to the restriction of fresh expenditure in undertakings at home. As I understood it, the Chancellor himself admits that in this direction there is no big economy to be effected, but small economies only. As the memorandum informs us, to achieve economies to the extent which we believe to be necessary we must look to the much more difficult and larger regions of service expenditure on the forces, and when I refer to the actual
wording of the memorandum in that respect I find that it may cover much in the way of improvement in economies in future, or it may cover very little. I find the blessed word "exploration." The Government is going to explore the question of economies in Mesopotamia. It is not very reassuring to hear that they do not yet know their way about that question. In the third reading of economies to be effected we welcome—I understand it to be the almost unanimous feeling of the House, with very few exceptions—the pronouncement as to a prompt and speedy termination of the temporary Ministries. There again I find a phrase which gives, possibly, a hint of disquietude as to the transfer of their residual activities. It appears to me that the economy to be effected by the actual cessation of the staffs and separate organisations of those Ministries is not comparable in importance with the economies to be effected by the cessation of their activities. If the undertaking means that much of the staff and many of the activities and a great deal of the stocks of these temporary Ministries are to be transferred to other older Ministries who are to take over the business, we shall be very little the gainers. All through this business of liquidation of war organisations and war businesses it is not so much to the disappearance of names and officials that one would look for advantages to be gained, but to the rapid and prompt realisation of stocks. It is not the actual expense of the Ministers and the salaries of the officials that are working real harm to the commerce of the country. What works far more harm is the actual holding up of enormous sums of capital and stocks in Government hands. We have £60,000,000 worth of wool, for example. Then we have timber and ships and many other things. This dislocates, amongst other things, the capital market and prevents it from resuming its normal and healthy state.
Let me glance at what appears to me an essential point of the situation which has been brought into relief by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He, told us that he was continuing and had resolutely set his face against further inflation. Let us acknowledge the success of his efforts in that direction to prevent further inflation by direct Government
borrowing in the course of this year. Is that the whole of the picture? To see the picture in its true aspect you must look elsewhere. I said at the outset of my remarks that we met with a sense of gravity on this occasion. If I understand what causes that gravity, it is due to the belief that in our mind to-day we have got another instance of that age-long chronic fight for economies in detail, the prevention of waste and so on, and that for the safety and security of the nation in future, it is essential that on this-occasion, here and now, we should establish a whole, fresh policy as regards expenditure. The urgency of that is contained in two or three figures that are very likely present to the minds of many Members, and if not it is essential that they should be present to our minds at the present time. They are the figures which show that at the present time we have overcharged our taxable capacity and we have exhausted our margin of savings in the course of the year. Before the War we used to put aside for Government expenditure and for saving and reinvestment £550,000,000. At the present value of the £ we may reckon that at about £1,300,000,000. Out of that we are raising a tax revenue of £1,088,000,000. But in the meantime the-actual amount put aside now is far less- 20 per cent, less than it was before the War. That 20 per cent, less would produce a margin in the course of a year over Government expenditure and for the restoration of industry a margin of £1,060,000,000. You have a margin of £1,060,000,000 and a tax revenue of £1,088,000,000. The figures leave no room, for doubt that with so great a proportion of the national wealth going in the direction of national expenditure, not enough is left either to maintain industry refreshed at its pre-War rates or to refresh it with the special recuperation, and with the special effort at reconstruction which are needed after the havoc of the War. What results would you expect, what results would any business man expect from such a state of affairs? Where would he look to see the result? He would look to see it in the wide field of the general effects of trade depression. What symptom would he look at, to find the effects of over-expenditure eating up too much of the margin of wealth in the country? He would look to find it in trouble between
the industrial and trading community and the banks. That is the symptom which you are beginning to see now, and which, unless we change our view, we may continue to see with ever-growing menace as the winter goes on.
The trader is asking for accommodation and not receiving it. The banks are beginning to make difficulty. What else can be the result of raising the level of national expenditure right up to your margin of saving? Where will that lead? It will go on, of course. Possibly the best thing that could happen would be for the banks to take the brutal short cut towards a remedy and to close down any business for which they could not find capital. At any rate, that is one alternative. If you soak up into the Exchequer all the available supplies of fresh capital needed for industry, the banks sooner or later must close down many accounts. What other alternative is there? It is the melancholy alternative from which, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer turned away his eyes. This situation which I have ventured to describe-the margin of capital for industry dangerously reduced-may lead directly towards the indirect manufacture of credit, indirect inflation by the banks, in order to supply to traders that accommodation which, owing to the size of taxation, they are not able to do. I venture to suggest that if we go on in our present state the only possible alternatives before us are liquidation of industry, of undertakings, in a simple and less welcome word, bankruptcy, or a period of slow inflation, of manufacture of fresh credit by the banks in order to keep industries going. Anyone who takes a broad view must realise that that can only postpone the trouble and lead back in the end to the first and more violent form of disaster which lies ahead of any course of unsound finance.
Of course, the remedy is obvious and well-known. It involves leaving more of the available margin of savings for the use of the credit of the country. How are you to do it? How are we to get this dead weight of expenditure shifted and to get the wheels of economy turning? We welcome the assurances given us to day. We will welcome still more some-thing which is more definite. I have not been able ever to content myself, though
I have sought to do so, that there is any practicable possibility of setting a limit to expenditure by the method of rationing recommended in the Motion. I do not see how it is common sense that the House, even with all the attention which it gives to the subject, and even after the most prolonged private inquiries, can possibly hope to meet here and arrive at a figure for our national expenditure. If they seek to approach it from the-. point of view of what we can afford to spend they will find there are no statistics available to help them. If they seek to arrive at it by regarding objects of expenditure in the Departments, there again, I believe that the actual amount of knowledge is too small and too little in detail for us to be able to discriminate. Also the field is too, wide. It is impossible for the House,. with all its varied interests and views, to survey so wide a field of expenditure and to relate the different objects together. Besides, rationing has very great disadvantages. You fix a sum with the idea that it is to be the amount, and then you find that you are driven from it by casual expenses, and the scheme breaks-down. On the other hand, you have the-experience that detailed criticism of expenditure leads us nowhere.
Is there no halfway house between the two which w ill enable us to lay out some broad outline as to the standard to be observed by the Government in economising? It may be difficult to find, but I believe there are certain ideas, definitely related to common sense, about our standard of expenditure, which need no invention. Were we to try to find one or two of these as aids in our attempt to fix some standard of economy and limit of expenditure, I believe we should find the most helpful idea of all in the extremely simple principle that what we. were spending in 1913–14 before the War-we ought to be spending now, and no more, except in so far as there is absolutely necessary and unavoidable war expenditure added to that standard. I think: we do, as reasonable men, all take that as, our standard involuntarily. We refer back to 1913–14 as the standard of what is reasonable. There are to be added, of course, War pensions, the increased debt services, the necessity for increased redemption and so on. If we took that
standard, I believe we should arrive at this result: That there is an amount of expenditure which cannot be justified either by the fact that its objects were being served before the War or by any necessary or inevitable consequences of the War, amounting now to a sum of £200,000,000 a year. By various routes and in various manners we all seem to get back to that as about the amount we ought to be able to save. I believe this Debate will show that we have established in many minds, and, I hope, in the minds of the Government, that that is the amount of reduction on present expenditure which may be made and must be made. Can we but obtain a reduction to that extent, I think that we shall be able to contemplate the industrial future without the grave misgivings that otherwise we must hold about it.

8.0 P.M.

Lord HUGH CECIL: This is a discussion which might occupy almost any field, and so many subjects have been mentioned which it would be tempting to pursue, that I could, I dare say, very easily occupy the time of the House for a hour or more without digressing the rules of relevance. I should have liked very much to have said something about unemployment, and to have sounded the praises of co-partnership as the ultimate remedy. I should have liked very much to deal with an observation which my hon. Friend (Sir G. Collins) made in a singularly able and instructive speech, that if the Air Ministry were abolished it should go under the Board of Trade rather than under the Army or Navy. These topics, and there are many which might be added, I propose to avoid, prompted by a congruity of motives of hunger and unselfishness. My hon. Friend did not take the line which I rather hoped he would take. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer contained a good deal of exposition, but I am sorry to say, also a great deal of recrimination which did not seem to me to have the slightest bearing on the Motion before the House. I do not care whether the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was justified in his observations at Finsbury or was not. That does not contribute a new element to the discussion.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the Noble Lord suggest that the truth is immaterial?

Lord H. CECIL: Not at all, but if we are going to have the whole truth, the right hon. Gentleman was very merciful in only speaking for an hour and a half, because vast passages of truth would have to be left untouched in that time. What I was anxious to see dealt with was, to some extent, dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Young) in the very interesting speech which he has just delivered. I had hoped that this discussion would have approached the problem from a new aspect. I do not want to go over all the ground as to whether expenditure was unjustifiable or unavoidable. I wanted to see the matter considered from the point of view of what is the economic condition of the country in consequence of the heavy taxation it has to bear, and how near are we to the limit of our taxable capacity, or how far are we already beyond the limit which makes taxation press on industry, and therefore on the trade and prosperity of the people, and cause unemployment, and much else. If we are, as I think the hon. and gallant Member showed, beyond that limit really now, and so heavily taxed that industry is suffering, and consequently there is unemployment, then we have got to a point when it is really essential that expenditure should be reduced. In his inference on that point, I began to disagree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and also with my hon. Friend (Sir G. Collins). I think the inference is that you should fix a limit of expenditure founded on the taxable capacity of the country, and that you should oblige the Government to act within that liimt, and leave to them, with their great administrative knowledge, the task of assigning the expenditure to this branch or to that. I think the gravity of the situation cannot be overstated. My hon. and gallant Friend gave us some very interesting figures as to the effect which high taxation is having already on the savings of the country. He took no account, I think, of local taxation in rates, and these must be estimated in addition, as being an additional burden on the capital and saving of the country.
In the course of his speech the Chancellor adverted to the fact that every
other country in Europe, except Denmark, was in a worse position that ourselves, and that is, I suppose, with the object of showing that our management of finance is not worse than the management of finance by other people in other countries. I think it is in another aspect an additional ground for alarm, because if one of those other countries suffers financial collapse, that cannot fail to react on our financial position. We have to consider not only our own prospects, but whether we are so firmly placed that we can stand the shock of some national bankruptcy; it may be of one of the great European
countries. After all countries are in the position that if they do not make the two ends meet, there must come a point when they will have to say to the public creditor, "We cannot pay you." It is a most disastrous point, but it is quite obvious that you cannot go on printing notes or other instruments of credit for ever. I do not know, the Treasury know much better than I could, what would be the effect on the economic condition of this country if some such event took place en the Continent. I think that is an additional ground for bringing down our own expenditure and making our own position as secure and stable as possible. How can we do that? I agree with the observation made by many hon. Members that 808 millions is not an exact figure, but I do not at all agree with the hon. and gallant Member in saying that no figure ought to be fixed, and that we had no data. He himself gave us some most interesting data on which it was possible to draw certain inferences. It may be said that the limit can be drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that that is one of the functions of the Treasury. I have great confidence in, and admiration for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and for his ability so admirably displayed in his speech, but there is one fault in the Chancellor, and that is that he is the colleague of Ministers who want to spend money. That is not a reflection either on him or on them, but they do want to spend money on their Departments, and it is only human nature. Many people find it a pleasure to spend their own money, at any rate for a time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer for his part does not want to break up the Government. The present Government especially are so convinced of their own indispensability that they generally wake up full of tears at the thought how sad
it would be for the country if by any means they went out of office. Conscious as they are of that great principle of self-indispensability, coupled with the principle of self-determination, that great principle is constantly in the mind of the Chancellor, and hampers him in his efforts to bring down the expenditure of the country.
I believe it to be true that you must have a separate organ for saving the national money, distinct from the administrative body of the Government who are concerned in spending it. I should like to create a Select Committee of this House, with the authority of this House, not to go into details, not to lose themselves in long discussions as to whether you should cut a million off this or off that, but to approach the subject from the point of view of settling what was the limit of the taxable capacity of the country, and then fixing a sum to which the Government would have to conform and let the Government spread the expenditure as they thought fit. I have put a Motion on the Paper which illustrates that point of view. If there were such a Committee, it is not true to say that it would only act as the Treasury acts. It would be an independent body, it would have access to all official sources of information, and when it came to a decision it would act independently, and it would not matter to the Committee at all whether it vexed the Government or vexed this Minister or that. It seems to me the problem now is not so intricate in the present emergency that such a Committee would find it difficult to solve it. If some such course is not taken, what becomes of the control of the House of Commons? We never have these Debates, I am sure, without being convinced that it is quite impossible for the House of Commons to check the details of expenditure. Committee of Supply, and Committee of Ways and Means do not serve the purpose in the least. Committee of Supply is an opportunity for people to point out this or that defect in administration, but unhappily those defers are more commonly solved by increasing expenditure than diminishing it. The Committee of Supply, so far from being a committee of economy, is a committee which tends to increase expenditure. Newspapers vociferate, and we are told that this is an urgent problem, and the Government tell us from time to time
that the duty and responsibility really lie with the House of Commons. How are we to perform this duty? It can only be done by a small Select Committee independently chosen by some person like the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is the financial officer of the House. Let him choose an independent committee to fix a maximum sum for national expenditure to which the Government will have to conform.
I am quite satisfied that we ought both ourselves contemplate, and the country should contemplate, the new aspect that has entered into these discussions, and that we ought to realise that we are face to face with a very serious national danger. A great many people are apt to think that national finance is only a question of expediency, a little better or worse, but the verdict of history is quite unmistakeable that more great nations have been injured or destroyed or brought down in the scale of national power by financial embarrassment than even by naval or military disasters. Nothing is more remarkable, in surveying the reasons why great countries have gone backwards, beginning with the Roman Empire and coming down to recent days, than the important part played by embarrassed finance. We ought really to realise that it is a vital question, and if we sink into a state of chronic financial embarrassment, and if our conditions become such that industry does not grow healthily with the supply of capital, we are incurring a danger as great as any danger, even from naval and military attack. Therefore I hope we will all lay the gravity of the question to heart. I think I should best express my sense of that gravity by voting for the Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), and that I should support him in the Division Lobby, because that will enable me to register a vote in favour of rationing by some independent authority in the State.

Mr. HOLMES: The Noble Lord who has just spoken commenced his speech by saying that he wished that some of the speakers to-night had taken the line of inquiring into the effects which Government expenditure was having on industry I shall endeavour to proceed along the line he desires. I am one of those who believe if the present amount of Govern-
meat expenditure is maintained, we as a nation are on the road to bankruptcy. I believe that in the main the slump of trade, the maintenance of the high cost of living, and the menace of unemployment at the present time are due to the extent of Government expenditure. I believe it has become the bounden duty of every Member of the House by every means in his power to induce the Government, not in any party spirit, but absolutely in the national interest, to drastically reduce the amount which they are spending. The hon. and gallant Member for Norwich introduced what, to my mind, is the basic point of our commercial success. For three or four generations before the War British trade was extending year by year. That was no doubt partly due to the enterprise and ability of employers and the skill and ability of workers, but all that enterprise, skill, and ability would have been thwarted had it not been for the fact that those who made money out of business in those days wisely set aside a portion of those profits for re-investment in their own or other businesses. It is probably correct to say that for many years before the War the nation saved and re-invested in its industries between £300,000,000 and £350,000,000 annually. With that money land was bought, factories were erected thereon, plant and machinery were purchased, and raw materials were obtained. So employment was procured for a growing population, and the prosperity of the nation was maintained.
Certain things will be as true in a post-War future as they have been in a pre-War past. One is that we cannot maintain our commercial position unless we as a nation year after year save money for reinvestment in our industries. The position to-day is that we are merely not saving but are actually drawing on our capital. Generally speaking it was the man who was termed the employer who made the large profits out of industry who saved the money before the War. The position of such a man in 1914 may he roughly summed up in this way. For every pound of income he spent 12s. upon himself and his dependents, paid 3s. in taxes and saved 5s. To-day the gross national income in terms of money is much greater than it was in 1914. Probably the same individual is not spending upon himself and his dependents more than 12s. in the pound but his taxes work
out to-day at 8s. 6d. in the pound. So he is not merely spending the 20s. he earns but he is annually exhausting sixpence of his capital as well. It is clear therefore that the burden of taxation resulting from excessive Government expenditure is leading us to bankruptcy, and unless a reduction of expense can immediately be made there is no safety for us in future.
This brings me to another consideration. I said a moment or two ago that the pre-War savings which were re-invested in industry came mainly from the employer. The workers in those days received such wages that it was practically impossible, except in a few cases, for them to save. It is clear to everyone that that state of affairs is not going to be maintained in future years. The working classes are claiming a share in the control and profits of industry. Most wise men recognise that that claim must be acceded to in the national interest. While it is essential that savings should be re-invested each year in industries, all the savings in the world will not give us the production that we require unless the will to work exists. At present the will to work is not strong. It will only be secured in my view by a total revision of our existing system. It is necessary for us to rid the workers of the suspicion that someone is taking advantage of their labour, and guarantee them against unemployment and starvation, and to give either collective or individual reward for collective or individual output. In other words, you must introduce what the Noble Lord briefly referred to as a system of co-partnership. May I add the spirit of goodwill by which our national motto will be, "All for each and each for all," whereby the workers will be satisfied that the fruits of industry will be fairly divided.
The financial effect of this re-distribution of profit will be that employers will not take so large a share, and consequently will be unable to save as much out of their share as they formerly did. The workers will receive a larger pro portion, and since it is necessary for us to maintain the supply of capital from our savings, it must be brought home to the workers of the country that in return for the increased share of control and profits they must exercise thrift and contribute their quota to the savings which form the following year's capital for the national industries. If those three con-
ditions are accepted-first, that a considerable sum of money must be saved each year from industry, second that the fruits of industry will in future be shared more largely by the workers, and third, that it will devolve on the many and not on the few to save and provide those savings for industry, it becomes more apparent than ever that the Government policy during the past two years has been one of national suicide. For instead of demonstrating to the nation that as a result of the war we have exhausted an incredible amount of our national wealth and that we are a poor nation as compared with 1914 and can only hope to prosper and gradually recover our old position by hard work, thrift and goodwill on the part of everyone, they have week by week introduced measures and created new Departments which have thrown increasing burdens upon both the taxpayer and the ratepayer, and have given the impression that our national wealth was inexhaustible and that our trade is so productive that any and every burden can be placed upon it.
They have maintained a system of taxation introduced by war which is producing dire results, and so we find ourselves at the present time as a nation short of money, with no enterprise in business, no will to work in industry, commodities at high prices, a general scarcity of goods and the menace of unemployment. Examine the various ways in which Government expenditure is the cause of these increases. I have already shown that it is absorbing the savings and taking the capital which should be used for the extension of old businesses and the commencement of new ones. It is in addition causing traders to borrow from the banks in order to pay their taxes, which is just as detrimental to national credit as if the Government itself were the borrower. It increases the demand for commodities in competition with business firms, and thus it keeps up prices of raw materials and increases the cost of production and diminishes the supply. It maintains the overwhelming burden of taxation in various forms, one of which, namely, the Excess Profits Duty, is and has been preventing men from commencing new businesses. It is also an important factor in the extent to which the exchange with America is against us.
Examine for a moment this question of the rate of exchange with America. There is plenty of money in America and enormous sums would be invested in this country if it were not that Excess Profits Duty, Corporations Profits Tax, Income Tax and Super-tax are absorbing so much of the profits which Americans investing their money here would receive. This American money would act in two ways. In the first place, it would help to put the rate of exchange in our favour, and in the second place it would provide new industries and increase employment in this country, and if we could get the rate of exchange better with America, the cost of living in this country would be enormously decreased. To-day, owing to the rate of exchange alone, we have to pay £15 for the same amount of wheat which we bought for £10 in 1914 from America, and if the exchange were normal and we could pay for what we are now paying £15 the cost of the loaf would be reduced and of all kinds of raw materials as well. Our lack of production here is also preventing us from sending goods to America to pay for our purchases of wheat and of materials, and in that way, again, the exchange is maintained against us.
If I had had the opportunity of speaking before the Chancellor spoke, I was going to ask him a specific question with regard to the Excess Profits Duty. It has been the custom, I think, for five years for the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduces his annual Budget, about the end of April or the beginning of May, to make some alteration in the rate of Excess Profits Duty, and although each alteration was announced on the Budget it was dated back to the previous 1st of January. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last year during the Budget Debate intimated that he did not propose that the Excess Profits Duty, after 1st January next, should be more than 40 per cent. Most people are now convinced that the Excess Profits Duty is a great evil, and there is no doubt whatever that the business men of the country are wondering whether the Chancellor is going to abolish it altogether. There are two sets of business men who are interested in this matter. There is the man who would start a fresh business and so give employment in this country if he knew that the Excess Profits Duty was going
to be abolished on the 1st of January. On the other hand, there are a number of firms and companies which are only kept going at the present time because they know that they can reclaim from the Treasury money that they paid during the War in Excess Profits Duty. From both these points of view, I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be of national value that he should intimate as soon as possible what he is going to do, and not wait until the end of April or the beginning of May before making an announcement on this very important matter, which is going to date back to the 1st of January.
Perhaps I may say a word or two upon the solution of the question of national expenditure which the right hon. Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) suggested on behalf of the Labour party. They, apparently, are of opinion that all the difficulties of the moment could be solved by means of a capital levy. They would take away from industry about £8,000,000,000 of capital, and they would so avoid the payment of £350,000,000 per annum for interest on that amount. I have advocated the imposition of a capital levy, and I still believe in it as much as I ever did, but I frankly confess that it is no solution of the present situation. If you could escape the payment of £350,000,000 a year, you would reduce the present national expenditure to something under £1,000,000,000, but you would have to raise that sum in taxes, and you would have taken away from industry £8,000,000,000, and you would be expected to earn and pay the £1,000,000,000 out of that lesser capital. A capital levy is only a paper entry. If the gross national wealth is £20,000,000,000 and the national debt is £8,000,000,000, the net capital of the country is £12,000,000,000, and if by a capital levy you wipe out the national debt, the net capital of the country still remains at £12,000,000,000, and all that I -have said to-night with regard to the necessity of maintaining fresh enterprise year by year by means of national savings would still remain. An individual may clear off a loan from his bank by the sale of assets, but if he desires to expand his business, he must spend less than he earns and invest the balance as new capital, and this equally applies to a nation. In my view, therefore, the only hope for the country at the present time is a drastic reduction of national expenditure.
With regard to the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), I think it is impracticable. I do not think the expenditure can be reduced to £808,000,000, because since that normal Budget was given to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the House itself has imposed a large number of fresh charges which it is beyond the Chancellor's power to defeat, even if he wanted to, and I think that if the figure was put at £908,000,000, that would reasonably apply to all the public money that it would be necessary to spend, apart from any sum to be devoted to the reduction of the National Debt. The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), who has moved an Amendment, has certainly given us a milk-and-water concoction which anybody in the House can take. He seems to have exceedingly charitable feelings towards the Government, and I think we can say he has lived up to his new position as representative of the Charity Commissioners. His speech was quite strong on economy, but I cannot help feeling that he is one of those whose lip-service would be much more effective if he would vote against such Estimates as the Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Food which we had last Friday instead of voting in favour of it as he did.
How can we reduce the present expenditure? We all agree that the interest on the war debt, the war pensions, the increased old age pensions, the land settlement grants and other grants for ex-service men, and the increased salaries to necessary civil servants, must all be met. It is necessary, however, for us to remind ourselves that expenditure is governed by policy, and that it may be increased by that policy being carried out in an extravagant way. Take the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The expenditure on those Departments depends on Government policy. We wasted £100,000,000 in Russia, and that was Government policy. We are wasting millions now in Mesopotamia. We are told it is to be checked. We are told that the Supplementary Estimate this year for Mesopotamia is £16,000,000, but I would like to ask whether, in addition to that, we really ought not to debit against Mesopotamia large quantities of stores which have been sent there, which had previously been bought by the Ministry of Munitions, and which if they had
not been sent to Mesopotamia would have been sold in our surplus store, and so brought revenue into the Exchequer. Then we are committed by Government policy to something in Persia. We have paid through Government policy for hiring a Greek army to fight the Turks in Anatolia. We cannot afford money for these things. To save the world from bankruptcy, armaments must be universally stopped, and we must take the lead.
With regard to domestic legislation, it is clear while all of us desire to advance social reform for collective benefit, it is impossible for us at the moment to foot the Bill. Speaking personally, I entirely agree with every word the hon. Member for Oxford said with regard to education. The increased salaries of teachers must be paid, so far as the Education Vote is concerned. But I entirely agree with what he said with regard to the Bill of 1918, apart from that particular point. We must, in fact, examine our whole programme, proceeding with that which is absolutely essential, and postponing the rest until better days arrive. We have been told to-day that certain Ministries are to go. With regard to others, their staffs must be cut down without delay or favour. It has been my privilege to act as chairman of one of the Government Economy Committees, and my Committee have examined the Department of Overseas Trade. Now that Department is exercising a most useful function at the present time. It is assisting in developing our overseas trade, and is giving considerable help to the traders of this country. But I was appalled, in examining that Department very carefully, at the limitless possibility of expansion, and the danger that bit by bit, pound after pound might be added to the expenses of that Department. I believe that that Department could give 90 per cent. of its efficiency to the nation at half its present cost, and I do suggest that in these days, when we want to save money wherever we can, we should be content to accept 90 per cent. of the efficiency and so save a considerable number of millions. I believe that this would apply to many other Government Departments, and I especially commend to the right hon. Gentleman's consideration the Ministry of Labour.
As one who has worked on the County Council and in Parliament for over 11 years as a social reformer, it gives me
pleasure to make a speech like this. Nothing would give me greater joy than to be able to support all these benefits for the general community which are suggested both here and elsewhere. But it is no use our living in a fool's paradise, or putting our head in the sand and pretending there has not been a war. We have expended millions of pounds' worth of our national possessions in the fight for right against might, and it has left us, though victorious, a poor nation. The first duty which devolves upon us, as the elected representatives of the people—and it is a duty which we must accept, if we are to be an example to the other nations of the world who are looking to us for a lead—is to create a spirit of good will throughout the nation, so that by pooling our capital, skill, ability and industry, and by sharing the resultant profits in a fair and equitable manner, we may work our way out of the present financial difficulty and regain the prosperity which was ours before the War. When we have done that, let us go full-speed ahead with all the measures of social reform which the wisdom of Parliament may deem advisable. In the meantime, by national and personal economy, by the industry and good will of all classes, we must fight our way through the after effects of the War in as resolute a manner as we fought through the War itself.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am rather disappointed that this Debate should have taken place more or less under the influence of certain incidents which have occurred outside this House, and which was a good deal reflected in the temper of this House yesterday. I should have been glad if a Debate of this sort could have taken place without any other kind of influence except a genuine desire to see that the Government were brought to book for their past expenditure. Quite apart from that, I must confess I am very disappointed at the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon. I do not in the least want to attack him personally, because I have the very greatest respect for him. But, after all, he is the Minister responsible for expenditure, and he is the Minister in the Cabinet who, presumably, ought to bring all the influence he can to bear upon his colleagues, the chiefs of the various Departments, to cut down
any expenditure which they possibly can cut down. I took down one or two of the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that the House would be reassured by the Estimates. I do not think we are going to be in the least reassured by the Estimates. So far as I can gather from his speech, there is absolutely no promise whatever that taxation is going to be reduced. He certainly has told us that certain Ministries are going to be abolished. He has told us that the Shipping Control Department is going to be abolished, and also the Munitions Department, but he also proved to his own satisfaction in his speech that those Departments cost him very little indeed. He showed, in fact., that they were costing only a million or two, and, if that is the case, the abolition of these Ministries is not going to lead to any noticeable reduction in taxation. He also held out the promise, which was very well received by the House-I was delighted to hear it-that no new expensive scheme is to be proceeded with until the Cabinet have thoroughly deliberated whether that scheme is necessary or not. That will not lead to a reduction of taxation, but is simply a promise not to increase taxation, if possible, in the future. So far as I can see, the House has no reason at all to be reassured by the Estimates we are likely to see in the near future.
He also said that there was no need to be gloomy. I think there is every reason to be gloomy at the present moment. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House what taxation was per head before the War and what it is to-day. I believe before the War taxation was only £2 10s. per head of the population; to-day I believe it is about £21 Os. I think there is every reason to take a very gloomy view of the state of affairs with this crushing burden of taxation upon the population at the present moment. Some very serious figures were brought out the other day by a gentleman who has really devoted the whole of his life to getting out this kind of statistics, and he showed that before the War 8 per cent. of the national income was being spent on Government service, and that every year the people of this country put by 15 per cent. in savings. To-day, instead of 8 per cent., no less than 30 per cent. is being spent on Government service, and, instead of 15 per cent. of the national
income being put by in savings, only 5 per cent. is now being put by in savings every year. Therefore I certainly do not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is no reason to be gloomy. There is every reason to be gloomy at the present state of affairs. I exceedingly regret that no limit has been put upon what the Government may spend year by year. I believe it is a figure that could be arrived at. Therefore, with my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford, I venture to put on the Paper an Amendment to the effect that there should be an Estimates Committee for the purpose, presided over by the Chairman of Ways and Means, who should say what amount of taxation the country can bear year by year.
After all, the Cabinet as a whole is responsible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of the most important Members of the Cabinet. The Government as a whole is responsible. Look at the case of the Health Bill which was brought in the other day. We were told some time ago when we were expecting this Ministry of Health Bill that it was being delayed because the Cabinet were considering and examining it very carefully to see what was absolutely necessary to put in it. They bring it in. When the House threatens to defeat Ministers, the Leader of the House tells us that the Bill can be quite easily dropped. Why did not the Cabinet in the first instance, when it was examining this Bill so carefully, make up their mind that the Bill was unnecessary at present? If the Government have got economy so much at heart why did they pass this most expensive Bill in the first instance? Why did they only discover that the Bill could be dropped when their own supporters threatened to vote against them? It really looks—and I say this sincerely—as if the Government were only economical when they were scared into being economical by Members of the House or by the fear of being defeated in the Lobby. I believe that saving can take place in pretty nearly every Department of State. As a great many hon. Members desire to speak I shall only use a very few of the notes I have and I intended to use, but I should like to make one or two observations on one or two Departments and to give one or two instances out of the hundreds I think I could give to show where saving could be made to-day in the various departments.
I will not deal with the Ministry of Food because we are told that is going, and it was dealt with very fully the other day, when the Government were very nearly beaten on the Division. I will not deal with education, because I understand now that the Government are not going on at the present moment with what may be called the Fisher scheme. Take the Pensions Department. Here is another case very much like that connected with the Ministry of Health Bill. There is to-day a Committee inquiring into the methods of administration of the Pensions Department. There has been, as everybody knows, a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction with what is known as the regional system of administration. Files are sent over the country and very often lost in the post, sent backwards and forwards to and from London, and the cost is very great. There is an inquiry going on into the whole of that with the idea very possibly of scrapping the whole thing that has already cost millions.
When that policy was inaugurated, did the Cabinet go into that question and really make up its mind as to whether that expensive regional system was necessary or not? The cost of dividing the country into these regional districts must have been simply enormous. For instance, you have in Leeds alone a staff of 575 persons costing £120,000 a year. The staff at the Ministry is still increasing. I find by looking at the official papers-I will not give the total numbers-but during the last month the staff of the Pensions Ministry has gone up 195. When a question w as asked in the House the Minister said that the increase in staff was due to hospital staffing expansion. Why on earth should hospital staffs be expanded two years after the Armistice? Take the Ministry of Health. I suppose that there issues from the Ministry of Health day by day some of the most expensive schemes this country has ever seen. Take, for one thing, the housing scheme. Members may think my point a small one. That is not so, because nearly everybody knows that in the expenditure of local councils on housing everything over a penny rate has to come out of the Exchequer. At the present moment local councils are being forced into the most expensive schemes by the Ministry of Health, into schemes they do not want.
I have two letters. One is from a rural district councillor in Herefordshire. He says that the agricultural population is decreasing, that they do not want a housing scheme, that the houses would not be occupied, and they soon would be derelict. Yet their own scheme, on a much smaller scale, has been absolutely overridden by the Minister of Health. The Ripon Council apparently control a great many concrete Army huts, and a very 'large parade ground, giving plenty of ground for allotments to the houses, which it is possible to complete for £200. Yet the Minister is forcing upon that Council a most expensive scheme for houses that will cost over £1,000 apiece, every single penny of which, over a penny rate, will have to come out of the Exchequer. Housing is only one of the schemes flowing from the present policy of the Ministry of Health.
Before I sit down I should like to say how very disappointed I am that apparently very little is going really to be done to reduce expenditure at the War Office at the present time. It is almost impossible to know where to begin or end with the Secretary for War. Let me give a couple of instances. There is on the Tigris an enormous water transport service going on at present, and which is not absolutely necessary. I have had the advantage in the last week or two of talking with one of the most capable experts in the Kingdom. These ships that belong to the Government were sold the other day for £2,000,000 to people on the spot to carry on their ordinary trade on the Tigris. At the last moment the Government held the ships back. They have never been delivered, and the deposit on that £2,000,000 has had to be refunded. I say that the whole of that service ought to be abolished. At the present moment, it is costing about £2,000,000 per year for the upkeep, fuel, coal, supplies, and so forth. A great many of these ships at the present moment go up the Tigris with only one general on board. Every single staff officer out there thinks he has a right to a ship of his own of that enormously expensive transport service. The thing is an absolute scandal. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look into it. £2,000,000 perhaps is not much in view of the vast sums that are being spent,
but I give it as an instance of what I am driving at.
Let me give another instance. Take the Scottish command at the present time. It numbers one cavalry regiment, three regiments of infantry battalions, and some 2,000 or 3,000 Territorial recruits, with a few skeleton regular depots which are practically negligible. I wonder what the House thinks necessary to train and administer that very small force? Let me tell them. At the present moment, for the training and administration of that very small force the War Office has got in Scotland one lieutenant-general, two major-generals, two brigadier commanders—shortly to be increased to six—and 48 staff officers of various departments and grades, including one field officer who is in charge of the air-craft. They have also got in Edinburgh a garrison adjutant with a headquarter officer, and a large number of staff officers. All that is wanted there is a small travelling committee to cut down any extravagant and unnecessary expenditure. What attempt is the War Office making to cut down its swollen and unnecessary staffs? The War Office Department has 7,767 more than it had in 1914, before the War. Not long ago 30,000 feet of vacant ground was vacated by the officials of a Government Department, and I asked what was going to happen to that ground and whether the huts would be cleared away. I was told that they were not going to be left vacant and that they were going to be occupied by War Office staffs, who were removing from requisitioned business premises.
I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be afraid of his colleague at the War Office. We all know that the Secretary for War has a formidable personality, but I do not think the House is afraid of him, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be afraid of him, and allow him no more latitude than he allows to the Minister of Health or any other Minister. These arc only a few instances of extravagance, and I could give a great many more. I hope that before long we shall get some limit to this expenditure, and I cannot imagine a better way than that the Chairman of Ways and Means and a Committee of this House should sit upon the question of taxation in this country, and the
amount we ought to be called upon to bear. If an emergency arises the Government can always come here, and this House will always give the money if the Government makes out a good case. It is only by tying the Government down to a particular limit, unless some great emergency arises, that we can hope to stem the flood of prodigality that is going on at the present time.

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Whatever feeling the House may have on the subject under discussion, there is one point in regard to which we shall be in common agreement, and that is that the need for this Debate is very real and urgent. There is an impression in the country that this Government means to pursue its legislation with a complete disregard for the existing financial situation, and it is quite time that impression was removed. I think this House, and the country generally, will welcome the assurances we have had to-day from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although I must confess that I do not share his optimism with regard to the realisation of the current year's estimates, I am glad to see there is going to be some measure of economy shown. There has been so much limelight thrown upon this subject that I think we want now to look at it in the right perspective, and get a clear idea of what is meant by economy. Everybody is talking about economy, because it interests them, just as it interests people to talk about their health, and most of them are talking about it with about the same amount of knowledge and the same amount of ignorance.
9.0 P.M.
We find ourselves in two schools. There is the economist who always says, "No" to everything and the economist who always says "Yes." We have to try and steer a middle course between the two. When I first went into business I knew a bank manager who had a great reputation for firmness and sagacity because he always said "No" to every proposition which involved the smallest amount of risk. Of course, it was only a question of time when his bank had to be absorbed by a larger institution. The science of economy covers a very wide variety of ground, and one of the branches of economy is the utility of the services which are rendered. Everybody is blaming the Government today, and let us see what the Government
have done. The real cause of our difficulty is the fact that we have been involved in a world war, and that it is not yet over. Whilst it was going on, the Government was forced to live on its capital and its credit, and I maintain that under the circumstances it was sound economy to do so. As soon as the War was over it was bound to go on living on its capital and credit in order to consolidate the efforts of the War, and to try and get trade back to the ordinary channels and to find employment for the men coming back from the Army, and to carry out measures of social reform which had been postponed for five years by a complete stoppage of all social and economic measures.
Although I do not agree with all those methods and the manner in which the Government has carried out its policy, I do urge that what this Government has done is to save the country from revolution and that, after all, has been the soundest piece of economy of all. We have to take stock of the situation. We cannot go on living on our capital and credit and spending more than our income. We have to take stock of the existing financial situation because it is really very acute. In order to completely understand this point let me analyse it. There has been a great deal of inflation owing to the War. Following on the War and the process of inflation, we had to proceed with a restocking process to reap the benefits of trade which we thought were going to accrue. We were encouraged by the banks who did everything they could to stimulate enterprise, so that people could get their businesses going. That has all failed because the aftermath of the War was much more complicated than we imagined it would be, and our markets have failed us. I was surprised to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer so optimistic, and he made so little mention of this point We are in this position that in most of the trades of this country practically a state of moratorium exists
The hon. Member for Norwich referred to the holding up of goods for high prices. That is not the difficulty to-day. The trouble to-day is not a question of realising high prices. It is that you cannot sell at any price, and that difficulty has been brought about largely by the fact that deflation has been proceeding far
too rapidly, and there I disagree with my hon. Friend who talked about diminution of the necessarily high cost of living. We are not going to solve all our problems by bringing down the cost of living. What we have to do for the time being at least, in my opinion, is to check deflation and keep prices up. I should like to quote from a letter to the "Times" a few days ago by a well-known economist who points out far better than I can the dangers of deflation. He points out that "at the Brussels Conference Lord Chalmers said it was the British policy to bring about a large deflation of prices and a return to normal conditions." Let us see what that means. If we were to return to normal conditions, by which I presume are meant 1913 prices, "the national income would decline from £4,400,000,000 to about £2,500,000,000. If the national income should decline to £2,500,000,000 and the expenditure on national services be maintained at its present level, that is, £1,350,000,000, these services would call for 54 per cent. of the national income, wages would have to decline rapidly and ultimately reach a level of approximately 50 per cent. below their present standard. What prospect is there of such a fall in wages?" Let me give another illustration to illustrate the extreme danger of the existing situation. The process of borrowing which went on during the War has caused an inflation both of bank deposits and bank loans. This is what the position is. All these deposits in the bank are payable practically on demand whilst the loans on the other side of the account are backed up by securities which are constantly falling in value, and if anything like a bank run set in—I grant that it is almost inconceivable—the disaster would be wholesale, with a scale of unemployment which I dread to contemplate.
It is very easy to analyse the situation. Everyone is doing that. It has been very completely and well done to-day by most of the speakers. But it is no good analysing the situation if the analysis does not help you to suggest some remedies, and I am going to try to suggest one or two. Some of them may even not be worth discussing, but it seems to me that to-day we are all like drowning men clutching at straws, and anyone who can come along with anything which will help to alleviate the
situation is the person we want. I suggest, first of all, that deflation should be checked by encouraging the banks not to contract their credit, but to extend it. Then I suggest that the question might be raised as to the lowering of the bank rate. I have never been quite able to understand what was the object of putting it up to 7 per cent. Everyone knows what the object was in pre-War days under the old system of credit, and how the bank rate operated successfully to check foreign exchanges, draw gold into the country and stop speculation. But that does not obtain now. The whole situation is in the hands of the banks themselves. If they want to stop credit, they can do it. They do not need to put the rate of interest up and force the Government to go into the market borrowing money at higher rates.
Then I think something might be done in regard to the foreign exchanges. This country used to live by exchanging its goods with almost every country in the world. You have only to look at the map to realise that, and you have only to consider the state of the world to-day to realise what a very serious thing it is for us that our markets have failed. The great difficulty is that we are in a position to sell, and no one is in a position to buy because the exchanges are too high. I find myself here divided between two schools of thought. There is the school that says: Leave things alone. Leave the economic machine to adjust itself in its own way, and that, after all, is the right way. But the time is so serious that we want to try to follow some other method if possible, and I think there is one course that might be followed. I do not pretend that it is a very satisfactory one, but in all the great trading countries of the world there are men who are accustomed to international trade. There are men in Germany who are accustomed to trade with this country, and there are men in France who are accustomed to trade with Austria, and so on. If these people could be got together—business men, accustomed to large transactions, with all the ramifications that international trade brings in its train and asked to formulate some scheme of credit -insurance therein we might find something to help us out of the very great difficulty we are in with regard to our foreign exchanges. Among the disappointments I felt in listening to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was the disappointment that there was no pronouncement as to the future course of taxation. There is no doubt whatever that trade to-day is very sick because it feels it is overburdened with a disproportionate burden of the national expenditure, and the Budgets of the last few years have ignored what I may call the mentality of trade. There is a great deal in that. I do not say that the Excess Profits Duty has killed the trade of the country because that would be folly, but undoubtedly it has adversely affected the mentality of the trader. He is disappointed. He thinks it is not worth while embarking on fresh enterprises. He is what we used to call in the Army fed up about the whole thing, and it is very important. There was a gentleman a few years ago who wrote a very learned book, as far as I remember, to illustrate the fact that the periodicity of trade crises occurred in accordance with spots on the sun. We all know we are always more hopeful in the springs. Things are always better in the spring, and I urge the Treasury to bear in mind what effect is made upon the mentality of the trader by the system of taxation.
I should like to say a few words with regard to currency, because here I feel that we are at the rock bottom of the whole situation. One of the greatest difficulties we have is the constant fluctuation in the value of the pound, not only abroad, but in this country. The pound to-day is merely worth what it will exchange for. Therefore its value is constantly changing between one trader and another. I spoke in this House about a year ago on the same subject, and suggested that the issue of currency should be based not on the requirements of the Government but on the requirements of trade. I believe that has been done, but it is very difficult for us laymen outside the charmed circle really to ascertain what the system of the currency issue is and how it operates. It is one of the most difficult and complicated subjects I know to-day. I suggest that the Government should reassemble the Committee, which sat in 1918, to consider the whole question of currency and foreign exchanges. It issued a most admirable Report, and I think the time has come when it should be asked to meet again and reconsider the new situation which has arisen in the few years which have
elapsed since the first Report. There is something to be done there. An eminent banker, speaking in Liverpool a few days ago, advocated the establish meant of a gold exchange standard, or, in the alternative, a sterling exchange standard. I do not think that at the moment either of those courses is feasible, but I feel that they ought to be considered; and the question might also be considered of basing our currency upon the system obtaining in America amongst the Federal Banks: One thing about which I am satisfied is, that we shall never get stability of prices, nor anything like a real standard of value, until the currency is transferred back to the Bank of England, as it was in pre-War days, when the whole scheme operated so successfully.
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) spoke of the effect of taxation on national saving, and pointed out, quite rightly, that a gradual transference of capital is going on. The captains of industry no longer look forward in the future to so large a share of the profits as in the past. I agree with that. That process began during the War, when there was an immense transference of purchasing power from those who were accustomed to have it to those who were not accustomed to have it. What have they done with the money? It is true that their surplus earnings are probably of no great amount to-day, but that is merely an unpleasant phrase, and the time will come, sooner or later, when the new wage-earning class will have money to save. What are they going to do with that money, which is a source of saving that has never yet been tapped? These people are not catered for. The Post Office Savings Bank allows 2½ per cent. interest; it will only accept £50 in a year, and not more than a total of £200. Moreover, anyone who has had dealings with it knows that you are treated like a criminal if you want to have anything to do with it, and like a murderer if you want to draw any money out. It would get a great deal more money if it were brought up to date, and if it allowed a higher rate of interest. The results are most disappointing. In July, 1914, it had £180,000,000 worth of deposits, and in July, 1920, only £261,000,000. Its depositors had increased in number by 40 per cent., and its deposits also had increased by 40 per cent. Then there are the
Trustee Savings Banks, whose results are very little better. They only have today £72,000,000 worth of deposits. They show an increase in depositors over pre-War days of 15 per cent., and in deposits an increase of 33 per cent. The third resource is the Joint Stock Banks, but people will not go to them for many reasons. The hours are inconvenient, they do not understand the system, and the whole thing is not catered for.
These people ought to be catered for. I may be told that they put their money in War Savings Certificates, but I do not think they do. War Savings Certificates amount to £426,000,000, and they are by no means all in the hands of the wage-earning classes. I have a War Savings Certificate myself, and I wonder if my right hon. Friend knows what it is costing the Treasury. As far as I can make out, it must be costing in interest 9 per cent. or 10 per cent., taking into consideration the fact that I do not pay tax on it; and there are hundreds of others who have such certificates likewise. I would suggest that the Government should consider the advisability of increasing the rate of interest on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank, and of improving its facilities. They might also issue small bearer bonds somewhat on the lines of the French Rentes. The moral effect would be good. Give a man a small bond, make it payable in cash on demand at any time without accrued interest, and attach to it coupons that he can cut off, and you convert him into a capitalist. When he cuts off those coupons and goes to a bank to collect them, he gets a feeling that he has never had before, and he begins to realise that there is something to be said for capital after all. I cannot help thinking that we are reaping to-day the results of the bad financial policy which has been pursued by the Governments of past years The evil crept in in the time of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in 1906. I was reading Macauley the other night, and came across a passage which seemed to me to be so wise and so apposite to the considerations that are now before us, that I cannot refrain from quoting it. Writing in 1844, Macauley said:
The real statesman is he who, … when great pecuniary resources are needed, provides for the public exigencies without violating the security of property and drying up the sources of future prosperity.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have only two points to make, and will make them as rapidly as possible. With regard to the Navy, we have had an important declaration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day. My feeling throughout this matter has been that, while things are as they are, we must have efficiency at sea, and I bitterly resent the fact that money is being spent on the Army to-day for what I believe to be no good purpose, while there will be a danger in the lean years to come of the Navy being starved. The Committee which is being set up must not be set up by the Admiralty, or it will be coloured by the Admiralty, which is dominated by people who have been brought up in one idea—the idea of the great ship built in the days when we were a rich country. That may he a good idea or it may be bad. A committee of experts will be set up to look into it, but it should be set up by the Committee of Imperial Defence and not by the Admiralty. It must include the most distinguished and efficient naval experts, our best scientists and shipping experts, but they should be appointed by the Committee of Imperial Defence.
My second point is with regard to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) with regard to Russia I am not going in to the details of any trade agreement, but it affects our finance vitally Our Government has been converted at the moment, but possibly it may be too late. The people in Moscow may have got, to use an Army expression, "bloody-minded," and may refuse to deal with us. A very prominent American financier has just come back from Moscow, and there is lively to be a very great trade between Russia and the United States. The United States, however, cannot fulfil the requirements of Russia. With regard, for example, to the question of transport, Russia to-day needs 17,000 locomotives, and the output of the United States over and above the needs of their own railways and they are short of transport, too—is only 4,000 in three years. That means that we must come in to help. If Moscow thinks to-day that it can do without us and our manufacturing resources, it is making a great mistake. I fear, however, that we may possibly have been too late, and that military victory may have gone to their heads. In case any words of mine may possibly reach outside the
walls of this Chamber and across the seas, I want to make an appeal to them to have patience with us, in spite of the ridiculous and ungrammatical articles by the Minister of War in Sunday newspapers. He has a following of about 20 people in this House and a following of 20,000 in the whole of England. He does not represent. England at all. The Prime Minister has been right on this matter. This House will support him, and the country will support this House in this matter of trade with Russia. The problem is for the other side

Mr. JESSON: What is Russia going to give us in exchange?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That is a question of trade. I am dealing entirely with the financial question now. I can discuss that with the hon. Member at length at any time. The Americans see that they can get something, and so do the French. I hope we have not been too late in this, and that, even if little difficulties are being made on the other side, we shall meet them if we can. A lot of bitterness has been caused in the minds of certain people in Russia during the last two years, but I hope that they now realise that we are in earnest and will meet us half-way.

Sir ERNEST WILD: This Debate technically is a discussion whether the Estimates should be fixed at a fixed sum throughout the year or whether we should express, in the words of my hon. Friend's Amendment, a pious hope that we should reduce them to the utmost extent possible. I notice the Debate has ranged over the whole field of what is called in journalistic colourings "squandermania," and my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who set us an example, perhaps for the first time, in brevity, finished by raising the question of the support which the Minister for War has. May I say he has 20,000 supporters in Dundee alone? We are here to assist the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the great call for economy that has been raised, and I am perfectly certain that this Debate—and I have listened to practically the whole of it—has been fruitful because, if I may say so, it has been eminently practical. We all agree that economy is essential where practicable. The Debate has done one thing: It has elicited a most statesmanlike speech from the Chancellor
of the Exchequer with regard to the collective decisions of the Cabinet. To sum up the Debate from the ordinary backbenchers' point of view I think one way in which the House can help in the question of economy is by being very jealous of expenditure. Of course, the whole system at the present time is a ridiculous-one. You have your Committee to decide which Vote should be discussed, and when that Committee has decided you should discuss certain Votes, you then spend three hours in perambulations through the Lobby without a word of discussion. That is not the way any business man would carry on.
I certainly feel a great inclination in favour of the original Resolution, although I am not going to vote for it. If it were practicable, there is no reason why the expenditure of the State should not be fixed just in the same way as an ordinary householder would fix his expenditure. That is what we all do in our own affairs, and if it were possible for the Government to do it, it would be a good thing. But I do not think, for reasons that have been given in this Debate, and which I do not intend to recapitulate, it is a practical policy. First of all, if you were to fix a sum, that sum would, of course, become the minimum. Then there are the ordinary emergencies that arise, and which must from time to time necessitate Supplementary Estimates. We can best help our constituents and the Government by being particularly jealous with regard to these Supplementary Estimates. I notice that process has been applied during the last week. I am perfectly certain the Government Bill in no way resent the House being careful and watchful guardians of the finance of the country. For these reasons, I do not think a financial maximum is possible. If it were possible I would have preferred the proposition of the Noble Lord to the proposition of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton.
I personally have listened with interest and attention and vigilance to the admirable speech made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He showed that the Government is on the alert with regard to the right principles by which economy should be brought about. It is all very well for us to castigate the Government. The real sinners in these affairs are the private Members of the House of Commons, and the worst
sinners behind them are their constituents. We come here and give illustrations and make suggestions to the Government, but when our constituents begin to press us we are only human if we begin to press the Government. Let me take one illustration. All my hon. Friends will agree with me, because they have had experience of this kind of thing. Take the case of the retired civil servants who have got their pensions. They come to us and say "We cannot live on them. The cost of living has increased, you must help us to get them increased." Do we not all help? I con fess I have. There may be one or two financial purists in the House who have not. Each of these individual cases is a case of great hardship, and we bring pressure on the Minister and get him to introduce legislation or votes, and then when you get the cumulative effect of it you hold up your hands in pious horror and say "Look, what an extravagance!" Let us cast out the beam from our own eyes before we proceed to pull the mote out of the Chancellor's eye. What the Chancellor and his Financial Secretary are looking about for is practical suggestions. My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has certainly given his, and so did my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green.
It is no good getting up this sort of newspaper stunt against extravagance unless you can come along with some practical suggestion for reducing cost. There has been an eminent but anonymous contributor to "The Times," who has contributed certain articles upon this question, with a view to encouraging the "Wasters," as we are called, to vote in the right direction. I read those articles, and the only two practical suggestions I could find in them were those in the article of to-day. His practical suggestion is that there should be, what is in effect, another Ministry, that there should be an examiner of Estimates attached to every Government Department. He goes on to say:
The cost will be small, but the saving may be great.
But in giving his advice to his unwilling disciples, this expert says:
The higher ground the forces of retrenchment take, and the less they allow themselves to be distracted by details, the more likely they are to win.
It is when we come to details that we find the real difficulties in regard to practical suggestions for economy. We are all in favour of economy in principle, but when it comes to practice it is a different matter. First of all, we have got to pay our debts. Next, we have got to honour the promissory note we gave at the General Election. I listened with very much interest to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton. It is all very well for him to say he was "dazed" by the great War. I suppose we were all "dazed" by the great War when we made certain promises on the platform. But most of us got here because we made those promises, and one of the phrases that was used was something about "a land fit for heroes to live in." I quite agree, and we are trying to live up to it. That being the case, what I want to ask in a sentence or two is this, where are you going to begin?
With regard to the forces of the Crown, I am glad to find that that matter is to receive the careful consideration of the Cabinet. I sincerely trust that even in meeting this cry for economy they will not allow themselves to reduce the forces of the Crown in a manner inconsistent with public safety. But with regard to the question of Mesopotamia—and I am perfectly certain all my colleagues will agree with me—we are glad that that matter is to be considered with a view to trying to get out of Mesopotamia as soon as we can with safety. The fact remains that when we take away the War charges, the charges essentially attributable to the War, we are paying for the three services—the Army, the Navy and the Air Force—bearing in mind the difference in the value of the £1, less than we were paying in 1913. Can we economise in regard to the welfare of the people? I was glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that the Cabinet Committee are going to consider not whether one wants a thing, but whether we can afford it. There are certain things which have to be done. I do not care whether one is called a "waster" or not. There are certain things we have to do and we shall have to do them or be dishonoured. With regard to the questions of Old Age Pensions and Education, although I quite agree there are certain ways in which education might be given more economically and more efficiently, yet I am not in
favour of cutting down the Education Estimates, nor am I in favour of cutting down the grants for police, health, insurance, war pensions, agriculture, and matters of that kind. They are all matters with which we must deal, although, of course, we can deal with them with one eye on the public purse.
I was very interested in hearing speeches from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton and of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford City who respectively moved and seconded the Resolution now under debate. It was very interesting to see that they were prepared to jettison certain things, and I was reminded of what was once said, "I will sacrifice legislation, won't you sacrifice health and housing, and so on." We cannot afford to sacrifice these things. My right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) used a phrase in reference to people's rights. We certainly shall not be right if we do not carry out our pledges with regard to health, housing. agriculture, pensions, and matters of that kind. I for one, although I am as keen an economist as any man in this House, will never be a party to treating the people of this country as if they were mere machines. These are matters on which economy would be false economy. Subject to these considerations I believe that the Cabinet's decisions are on the right lines. May I, in conclusion, say one word upon the cry of economy? There is no cry that can be so easily raised and there is no cry so calculated to mislead people. It is a cry which appeals to every householder, every taxpayer and every ratepayer. That is all the more reason why this House should not be coerced by what I can only call a popular stunt. It is a disgraceful conspiracy, that has been organised by the yellow stunt Press. You had it first with regard to two discussions last week. There was a Supplementary Estimate in connection with the mining industry, and upon that Estimate certain Members, after considering the arguments, voted one way, whilst certain other Members voted the other way. It was a matter very properly brought up by an hon. Member who would be the last person to say that those who do not agree with his arguments are wasters or people to be pilloried in the public Press. Then there came a discussion on the Food Vote. It was not really a Supplementary
Estimate at all. It was brought on because the Minister desired to take the opinion of the House. He said he was prepared to take a Vote for three months only instead of asking for the money. required for a whole twelve months. I only want to say for my colleagues, on which ever side they voted, and whether they voted at all or not, there is among them no man who would desire to make political capital out of hon. Gentlemen exercising their best private judgment in the interests of their constituents. If this sort of persecution is to be tolerated, it means that on any reduction, by whosoever proposed, backed by whatever arguments may be put forward, if I do not go into the Lobby in favour of it I am to be pilloried as a waster and to be assaulted by postcards and matters of that kind.

Mr. BILLING: Do not take it so seriously.

Sir E. WILD: It is not a matter for levity. It was said, for instance, that eleven of my hon. Friends who happened to vote for one Supplementary Estimate and against another had "seen the red light." We have been told that "the wasters are nervous" and that this "is the acid test," and the Noble Lord who never enlightens the Debates in his own Chamber has had the impertinence to issue what he calls a Squandermania Number.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it in Order for an hon. Member to attack in this House a Noble Lord who is a Member of another House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Gentleman has not said anything which I consider out of Order.

Sir E. WILD: I can understand my hon. and gallant Friend's solicitude for the Peers. I think I shall carry the House with me when I say we are not going to submit to this fresh Council of Action. It is not cricket; it is baseball. Having said what I wanted to say, and I wanted to say it very badly, for I thought it time somebody should stand up in this House and denounce this sort of treatment. I will conclude by remarking that our duty—I know it is my duty—is to continue independently to criticise these matters most vigilantly, to try and get rid of control as soon as possible, to get rid of Government Departments, because they
never could do business, and to watch over official extravagance, but not always to be making cheap gibes against Civil Servants. I think a phrase was used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite which he will regret. He said that Civil Servants were "safe in their dug-outs.' I am afraid that sometimes when we desire to catch popular applause, to which the "Daily Mail" is always playing, we say cheap things which are unworthy pieces of criticism against Civil Servants who, after all, are doing good work. Above all we must cut our coat according to our cloth. I think the Government may feel glad that they have had more support to-day than possbly they thought they would get. It is often their own fault that they do not get more support, because Ministers will get up and make such inordinately long speeches that they do not leave time for those of their supporters who would like to speak in their favour. At any rate, they have had the best of the decision to-day, not only in the admirable speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but in some of the other speeches that have backed them up. We all have but one stewardship, and that is to our constituents. My constituents are perfectly welcome to watch their M.P. I hope what I have said to-day will be reported to-morrow, because we are responsible to our constituents and not to yellow journalism or its like. I shall continue, in common with my colleagues, to support the Government when they bring forward measures for the good of the people, and to vote against them if they do the reverse.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I trust that I shall not sound too discordant a note when I dissociate myself entirely from the concluding observations of my hon. and learned Friend, just as I dissociate myself from the opening observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both of whom have thought it essential to their case to cast aspersions upon the Press. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, upon that section of the Press, which I say deliberately, did more to win the War than all the politicians put together [Laughter.] My hon. Friends laugh. When you wanted men and munitions, it was the Press that got them for you, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right when he makes his reference to the ignorant and irresponsible agitation in
the Press, let me remind him that that particular section of the Press to which he refers has among its principal contributors Members of his own Government Perhaps the Cabinet will officially disown the propaganda for which some of their colleagues are responsible.
I intend to vote for the original Motion, and for the Amendment. I shall vote for the original Motion because it expresses a theory which is unimpeachable, that this House has the right to say how much public money shall be used for the services of the State. I shall vote for the Amendment because it is a general, but not an unfriendly, reminder to the Government of our desire to effect all possible economies in public administration. I listened to my hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Wild) and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wonder if I dare suggest that, but for this ignorant and irresponsible Press campaign, we should never have had that catalogue of camouflaged economies on which the Cabinet have resolved. What does it come to? We are going to abolish all kinds of War Ministries, subject to this qualification, that when we abolish them we shall transfer such functions that they have not performed to some other Department of State, and transfer to those other Departments the necessary staff to carry them into effect. That does not cut any ice with me. We are going to look into the case of naval expenditure. We are going to wait and see what are the lessons of the War, and whilst America and Japan are building day and night against each other, we are going to be still until it is once more too late. May I beg, with great respect, the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the question which I am about to put to him. If it be the policy of the Government to stand still in the matter of naval armament until we have digested the lessons of the War, and until America and Japan have finished their mad competition-I want to know, and I have reason for asking-has that policy the approval of the present First Lord of the Admiralty? There is no answer.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is entitled to challenge me, and then to proceed with an argument based on the fact that I do not immediately interrupt him. I will read what I said earlier on this subject:
The Cabinet have, therefore, decided, and I am glad to say that the Admiralty welcome the decision, that the Committee of Imperial Defence shall institute at once an exhaustive investigation into the whole question of naval strength as affected by the later developments of naval warfare.
The course which we have taken not only has the concurrence, but it has the hearty approval of the Board of Admiralty, and is welcomed by them.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I am not speaking of the Board of Admiralty, but of the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: He happens to be the most important member of it.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: That is true, but he happens not to have been present at any meetings lately. We will wait and see what happens. Having made my point, such as it is, about naval expenditure, I am bound to say, and I say it deliberately, that for this country, with its sea traditions, to stand idly by whilst America and Japan are building capital ships as fast as they can is at least a dangerous policy. What about Mesopotamia? That blessed word "Mesopotamia"! We are going to wait and see if we cannot establish an Arab Government and an Arab army. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously tell the House that that is within the range of practical politics?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Then the right hon. Gentleman had better wait and hear the maiden speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Wrekin Division of Shropshire. [Hon. MEMBERS: "When?"] Members of our party get up when they like. There are no strings. There I will leave that point. I had put down a Motion that we should limit the Government to £1,000,000,000 a year, and I am sorry that I was not able to move it. I do not attempt to do so now, but I do say in all seriousness, having regard to what the right hon. Gentleman himself put forward, and having regard to the figures and calculations and the economical theories that have been expounded today, this House might well say that £1,000,000,000 a year is as much as we can afford to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend, and that we should call upon him to say to the various spending departments, "That is all the money you have amongst you." It might be and
probably would be that the amount mentioned in the original Motion would be inadequate in this abnormal year, and it might well be that £1,000,000,000 would be inadequate if you take into consideration the reduction of debt; but what have we to do with the reduction of war debt? Heaven knows we are paying enough today. So far as the reduction of capital debt is concerned, this War was as much and infinitely more for the benefit of posterity than it was for our benefit, and there is no sounder theory in finance than to let posterity pay its own debts, if not ours.
If the country has been misled into misunderstanding the expenditure of the Government under the various heads of Civil Service, etc., it is entirely the fault of that clumsy idiotic system of bookkeeping under which the Estimates are presented to this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that we have only a cash account, and that we have no capital account. We put on either side our receipts and our expenditure, and when you have a huge item called "Civil Service" which is reduced on examination to an infinitesimal figure, it only shows how misleading the whole of these accounts are. I urge for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's consideration the suggestion that he should bring in a chartered accountant of some experience to remodel the whole system of accounts as presented to this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Remuddle?"] No, remodel. I want to make a serious and practical suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil), who spoke this afternoon, had in his mind the idea of a Select Committee of this House, nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means, to check public expenditure. That is no good at all. Such a Committee would meet and talk and talk, as we have been doing to-day, with no practical result. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as representing the Government, that there should be a small Committee of this House, consisting of business men of experience, who should be empowered by the House as a standing permanent Committee to visit any and all of the Public Departments whenever they liked, to see what was going on, to check expenditure, to check work, to check staff and other things, and to make a Report from time to time to this House.
We have gone miles away from the subject under discussion. We have had a sort of supplementary Budget statement, a list of economies which the Government hope to effect some day. We have had nothing about economies in the existing Department. I am not going to talk about the waste of money on public printing, the Income Tax forms, the Stationery Department, the Education Department, the meaningless publications of no earthly use whatever. I came across one the other day. What it cost I do not know. It was sold for 4d., and my technical knowledge told me that it would cost at least is. a copy to produce. It instructed the schools of the country as to 200 games to be taught to children. What it began with I do not know. I believe it was a game called "Pop goes the Weasel." There was nothing about ducks and drakes in it. All these small items do not matter in a Debate like this. The Debate has at least had one good result. It has taught the Government that at last the attention of Members of Parliament is riveted on the public purse. It has taught the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we look to him, as the guardian of the public purse, to cut his coat according to his cloth. My final word is this. You may jeer and laugh as much as you like, but I am convinced it is true that we are indebted for this great awakening of the public conscience to the Press which, however ignorant and however irresponsible, you will find is a very big power in the days to come.

10.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My hon. Friend who spoke last told us that the notice that had been taken in the Press of the extravagance of the Government and of the very serious financial position in which the country is placed is very largely responsible for the changed attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to this great question. I think that that is partially true, at any rate. What, after all, is the great motive and driving power which has brought about this great change? It is the meeting of business men all over the country and the resolutions which representative institutions have passed, and the consequent interview that took place between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and representatives of businesses of every kind, combined with the undoubted, glaring and
obvious facts of the situation. My mind goes back to October of last year. We remember the optimistic picture which was then drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the glowing periods of the Prime Minister in winding up the Debate, and the splendid financial prospect that was opened up. But words do not count a bit as against facts, and the facts of to-day are—it is now widely recognized—that this country has raised a revenue which is far beyond the reasonably taxable capacity of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made some references to my right hon. Friend and Leader (Mr. Asquith), and invited him and my right hon. Friend Mr. Runciman to a conference of a Committee which is going to sit on the question of the cost of the railways. I have had no opportunity of consulting either of my two right hon. Friends, but I am certain I can say on their behalf that they would gladly accept that invitation. May I ask this further favour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will he give me an invitation to be present upon that occasion, because I am certain that, whoever may enjoy that function, I certainly shall do so? I know the position which my right hon. Friends take up on that particular question and the facts on which they stand.
One of the most important questions to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can direct his attention is, what is the taxable capacity of this country? I agree that to some extent he may congratulate himself on the immense sum he has raised by taxation; but I would remind him of the axiomatic truth that a much greater pride for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is not so much the amount that he can wring out of the pocket of the taxpayer as the amount that he can leave in it. We are raising to-day nearly £1,500,000,000. I admit that a large portion of that, £234,000,000, is going to the reduction of the National Debt, and a very good thing that is. But by what circumstances is it accompanied? By falling trade, by rising unemployment, by a dislocation of credit, and, so far as Europe is concerned, by a world reeling into bankruptcy. The deathbed repentance we have had to-day was called for at least two years ago. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government will get a huge Vote of confidence in the Lobby to-night. On what is it based? We had a very sound test on the
Supplementary Estimates. Supplementary Estimates, on the whole, allowing for contingencies which cannot he foreseen, are the measure of the error of miscalculation on the part. of the Government and the Departments concerned. What is the margin of error for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed in his Budget? It was £20,000,000 for the whole financial year. In July he got from this House £20,500,000, and in the month of November just passed he submitted Estimates, which no doubt he will get no matter what the arguments are, as evidenced on Friday last and on other occasions. He expects to get for the Civil Services, £9,400,000. He told us to-day that he expects to get for the Navy and Air £8,000,000 more, and for the Army, in round figures, a total of £40,000,000. Those three last figures added together amount to 2,53,000,000, so that for the year up to now we must take as an error of miscalculation that sum with the £20,500,000 previously given, making a total up to date of £78,500,000. But that is not all. When the House meets next year, and when we go through the usual process of the Spring Supplementary Estimates, what are those likely to be? I make a guess that they will be £20,000,000 —HON. MEMBERS: £50,000,0001"]—that will bring the total to £98.500,000 on Supplementary Estimates for this financial year, or nearly half the total pre-War budget.
That is a fine record of these guardians of the Treasury, and a splendid ground for the confidence of their supporters in the Lobby. But, as we know, that is not the worst of it. All this money of the Supplementary Estimates has already gone. You can go into the Lobby as a protest against it, but the House is helpless. Somebody has got to find the money. I do not know their means but am sure my right hon. Friends could not between them find the money for any one of these Supplementary Estimates. I cannot blame my right hon. Friends for that system which is the system we already have. The Supplementary Estimates represent money already spent, and what care, then, can we exercise in this grave position? Is it any wonder that the Government at last should realise the position? I say, and claim with confidence, that the agitation, to which the Chancellor has devoted such denunciation, of my right hon. Friend and of the Press, and on the platform, is thoroughly
justified by the facts of the situation. What do the Government propose to do? They propose at long last to abolish some of these Departments. The Ministry of Munitions is at last to go, and Shipping and Food. I want to ask the Prime Minister, does the abolition of these Departments mean real demobilisation? How long is the winding-up process going to be? That is a question which I am entitled to ask on account of the experience of the past. Are these unnecessary officials going to find a further resting-place in any other Department? Departments have been demobilised and abolished, and, as-far as any relief to the Exchequer is concerned, it is not reflected in the Estimates or the general cost of living. If this abolition is to take place, let it be a genuine one, and then we shall begin to believe in the reality of the intentions of the Government on this most important question.
Let me say a word or two with regard to the most important statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the Navy. I heard, and I am sure all my hon. Friends who are associated with me on this side, heard with a very great sense of relief that His Majesty's Government have determined that they are not going to be rushed into building capital or other ships which may be quite unsuitable for the purpose for which they are intended, and that they do not intend to be rushed into what we regard as wasteful and unwise expenditure, and that they will wait before anything like a general policy is decided on with regard to the re-building of the Navy, because that is what it really amounts to, until they have the substantially real agreement of this Committee they propose to set up indicating the lines on which that policy should go. I also regard it as important that this House should have a full opportunity of having those recommendations laid before it and of discussing them on the floor of this House.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: You will have the biggest Navy in the world.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Let me refer to the original Motion which pledged the House to a specific amount. That seems to me to name a figure which it is very difficult to reconcile with what must be the position in March. What alternative have I
left? I am going to register my vote against the Government as my only opportunity of expressing my approval of the policy of rationing, which is a real difference in policy. I want to emphasize that by what the Chancellor said last year. On the Second Reading of the Finance Bill in 1919 he said:
It is quite true that one section of Members call for economy here, and another section call for economy there. So on, over the whole sphere. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury must shoulder their own burden, fight their own fight, and come out as successfully as they can. I tell the House frankly that my endeavour is not and will not be to fight my colleagues. On the contrary, my endeavour is, and will be, to secure their co-operation in their own Departments. If it be true that Treasury control is the essential of efficiency, yet to make Treasury control really effective, to make it produce the results you might secure, the help of the Departments themselves and of the Ministers who minister to them is essential to the Treasury itself.
There my right hon. Friend was only following what I agree was the traditional line of the past. That is the line that has hitherto been adopted by Chancellors of the Exchequer. The time has come for changing that. The financial situation in this country demands that the financial position should control policy. You have often heard that policy must control finance, but the seriousness of the position does not require any emphasis of mine. Bankers are engaged to-day very largely in financing customers to pay the taxes of the Government. The taxable capacity of the country according to a very high authority has been reached. Many say that it has been exceeded. Here is a genuine difference of policy. Instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying, "I cannot fight my colleagues, I will take the old Treasury way," the time has come for the Government to say, "the country can find a certain amount of money and no more, and the Departments must frame their Estimates according to the general position by which we intend to stand." Until that is done I am convinced that there will be no real general beneficial change in the Estimates which are submitted. So long as Departments can be reasonably sure that the necessary pressure shall be put upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that there will be a never failing majority in this House so long shall we have swollen Estimates and reckless Supplementary Estimates. The
only use of spilt milk is the lesson which it gives us not to spill it again. I think that the House of Commons can do a great deal next Session and I invite hon Members to do a great deal on the Supple-tary Estimates this Session. But next Session what can it do? With a Budget which is seven times as large as it was in 1914, for we are spending over £1,400,000,000 now against £200,000,000 then, we are going to-

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon for interrupting him. He is a very fair controversialist, but when he makes that simple comparison, repeated constantly, that our expenditure this year is seven times, or whatever it may be, more than our pre-War expenditure, will he consider what the pre-War debt was and what is the present charged? It vitiates his whole case.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I said seven times, but I will say five times, if my right hon. Friend wishes. Whatever it is, we are going to devote for the Estimates the usual 20 days. How utterly impossible that will be. What I suggest to my right hon. Friend is this—and it is a practical suggestion—that next year we should shut down as far as possible all proposals for fresh legislation. I make that statement knowing that I shall not get the agreement of many people who often agree with me, but subject to absolutely vital legislation, I think we should shut down all fresh legislation next year, and let this House fling itself upon the financial situation as revealed by the Budget and the Estimates. Let us double the number of days; instead of 20 days, let us have 40 days for the Estimates next year. I am not arguing that that should be a permanent alteration in the rules of procedure, but we are face to face with a wholly exceptional position. If this House really means business, that is a feasible, practical suggestion, and it is only in and through this House that the financial situation can be really, fundamentally stabilised again. There can be no mistake about that. It can be done, if the Members of this House will realise what is their primary function. The foundation of this House and all its liberties and powers to-day is finance. They got them through fighting the Kings in the past, and they must use them in fighting the Executive now, no matter by whom the Treasury bench may be occu-
pied, whatever Government is there. It is the duty of the House as a whole, and the Opposition in particular, to criticise, to bend all its energies to see that the finance of this country is put on a sound and stable basis, and as my last sentence I w ill use a well-known saying: "A sound system of economy is in itself a great revenue."

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I quite agree with what my right hon. Friend said in his concluding sentences, that it is the primary duty of the House of Commons to exercise control over finance. It is the duty, not merely of the Opposition, but of every Member of the House, and certainly it is supremely the duty of the Government of the day. It is in that spirit that I wish to-night to approach the consideration of the very important problem which we have been examining in the course of this evening's Debate. It has been a very fruitful, and, if I may say so, a very sug-fruitful, and, if I may say so, a very suggestive Debate. Those who have taken part in it have taken care not to confine themselves merely to denunciation and condemnation, but each speaker in his turn has realised the responsibility that is cast upon a Member of this great assembly, which is the historic guardian of the revenues of the country, and has made his contribution and his suggestion. We have had but a very faint echo of the savage music of the jazz band outside. Although the chief performers in that band are Members of one or other House, I believe they have never yet performed within the walls of either this or the other historic assembly, where they could be answered.
We are all anxious for economy. It is a reflection upon Parliament to imagine that there is any section of it that is not anxious to economise in public expenditure. The Government have certainly every reason in the world to cut down needless expenditure, for there is no part of the population of this country which suffers so severely from heavy taxation as that which at the last election undoubtedly gave us overwhelming support. Even from a purely selfish point of view, therefore, apart from the recognition of a duty that is cast upon us, we should certainly do all in our power to cut down needless expenditure. But may I say that one of the evils of unfair, disproportionate and unintelligent
criticism is that it diverts attention from criticism that is helpful. There is criticism that is helpful; there is criticism which I am not going to say is not necessary, but which if it causes the attention of the House of Commons and of the public to be concentrated upon something which is not fruitful, diverts attention from what is really fruitful. That is why I deprecate a good deal of the criticism that is passed outside. It is right that attention should be drawn to the gigantic expenditure which is such a burden upon the taxpayers of this country. Not merely is it right, but it is incumbent upon all of us to give our constant thought and best mind to it and if anybody has any criticism to pass upon any Government Department it is absolutely right he should do so, but the situation is far too grave to convert that into a mere sort of ragging conspiracy. It is a matter for grave, solemn and careful examination by everybody throughout the whole of the community, for we sink or swim together.
For that reason, I regret that an impression has been sought to be created that the gigantic expenditure of the country is attributable, in the main, to three causes. Take the Ministry of Transport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, there are apparently followers of that theory here. There is the Education Act of 1918. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear!"] The next is health. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister of War."] I am coming to that. I am just dealing with these three matters upon which the most of the criticism has been directed outside. I am dealing with facts. It really is no use when you are approaching a problem of this kind with a view to affecting improvements to get hold of wrong ideas. Take the three things I have mentioned. The total cost of the Ministry of Transport is £300,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too much!"] It may be, but at any rate it is not £1,400,000,000. It is a very small proportion of the larger sums, and if you were to cut it out to-marrow you would not solve your problem. You would not make an appreciable approach to it. I am not going into the question now, but my right hon. Friend has pointed out that you may lose a good deal more if you withdraw the supervision that is exercised. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] But let us assume for a moment that the
criticism is right, and that it would be much better to have a small, inefficient, inadequate branch of the Board of Trade, rather than a Ministry of Transport, and that you would scrap. the whole of it, the saving would be £1300,000!
I come now to the second subject, the Education Act, 1918. Lot us get to the facts about it. The increase in the education burdens is not attributable in the least to the Act of 1918. I will tell the House to what it is due. It is due, first of all, to the enormous increase in salaries and cost of the materials. That is the main cost. That has nothing to do with the Act of 1918. We were confronted with the question of whether we were going to starve our teachers or dismiss them! I cannot think of anything more, dangerous—I will not say unjust—to society than to starve the teachers. Half-starved teachers have a good deal to do with Sinn Fein in Ireland. My hon. Friends from the North of Ireland, I think, will confirm that. It may have a mood deal to do with revolutionary doctrines here. That is the bulk of the increase. Somebody gave a very curious illustration in this connection. Salaries have gone up. School cleaning in the London area, which in 1913 cost £155,000, last year cost £574,000. This was for exactly the same services. If you raise salaries on the lower rungs of the ladder you are bound to do it all round. There is also a charge for demobilised officers in connection with education, but nobody would begrudge the payment to teachers who are demobilised officers. How does this affect the Exchequer? Before the War the Exchequer bore 45 per cent. of the burden of education and the rates 55 per cent. The burden became so heavy on the rates that appeals were made to the Exchequer, and now the figures are reversed. The Exchequer bears now 55 per cent. and the cost to the rates is 45 per cent. In the whole of that there is no increased charge from the Act of 1918. The total of that runs to £400,000 or £500,000 for continuation schools. The whole increase—I am taking England—running to some tens of millions, is attributable to the increased cost of materials and to the increased charges in respect of the salaries of teachers, and to the fact that we are contributing 55 per cent. of the cost of education from
the Exchequer whilst 45 per cent. comes from the rates. Before the House can apply itself intelligently to the examination of this. problem it is essential that the facts should be known. Otherwise criticism is directed into the wrong channel, and is bound to be unfruitful.
When you come to the main charge, there is building, and that is a question of policy. The very people who have been charging us with wasting money are also the people who used to have headlines, asking "Where are the houses; why don't you build? We cannot find them anywhere; press along." The House can, if it choose, say we are not going to build houses until material comes down and we can build them more cheaply. That is a question of policy, and it is a very serious question of policy whether we are going to run the risks, and they are grave risks, of the discontent which comes from overcrowding and, what is still worse, from the difficulty of finding houses at all, a difficulty which increases every year. It is only those who have been running a Government who know the anxieties there are as to what may happen here and there. It is part of the duty of the Government to see that the population is contented, and anything which provokes discontent or intensifies or continues discontent is a serious peril to good government. What I want to point out is that in trade, in business, in prosperity, security is the essential factor, and contentment is an essential element in security; and the Government has to consider all these things when dealing with the finances of the nation. Do not let us run into assumptions which are false and based upon facts which are inaccurate. If we are going to cut down expenditure let us find out where the expenditure is.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The War Office.

The PRIME MINISTER: You can cut down education. How? There are two ways you can do it. One I have already pointed out. You can cut down salaries, and get a formidable discontented class. I should be sorry to accept that responsibility, in the interests of good government as well as of fair play. The second thing you can do is to cut down the schools, extensions, improvements, new schemes, and not have this gigantic development. Those are the only things you can do.
May I, when I am on this, say one word about the lessons of the War. We must not forget them. We fought the best educated democracy in Europe, and those who know the difficulties know how much of those difficulties arose from the fact that we were fighting a highly-trained population. Nor must we forget when we deal with health, that we had the largest percentage of unlit men of any population in Europe. That is a reflection upon Governments. I am bound to give these facts to the House of Commons. It might be better for the moment if I got up and denounced all educational projects and everything of that sort, but I should not be doing my duty to the House of Commons and the country unless I pointed out these facts.
I want to say one thing to the House of Commons. This is not a difficulty which is confined to this country. It is a difficulty which is experienced by every great country that has been engaged in this War. My right hon. Friend I will not say taunted us—but it was part of his criticism—that the expenditure of this country is seven times what it was before the War. It is six times without the £200,000,000 devoted to redemption of debt. Let us look at other countries. The Italian Budget is nine times what it was before the War. In the United States of America, which had nothing like the burden we had, it is nine times. In France, which had undoubtedly the heaviest burden, it is ten times. The other countries, whether allied or enemy countries, are meeting their difficulties by one or other process of borrowing. It is not merely that they are not paying their debt. They are increasing it. We are the only country that is paying its way. We are doing more than that; we are not only paying our way, but are reducing our debt. We are naturally anxious, and worried, and apprehensive, but there is not a country in Europe that is not full of admiration for the way in which we are facing our difficulties.
My right hon. Friend complained of Supplementary Estimates, but there is not a country in the world that is not getting Supplementary Estimates. Why? The world has not settled down. It is no use comparing the pre-War period with the present period. It is quite impossible. There is unsettlement in the world; you are not dealing with settled conditions. If we had the highest rank of 
statesmanship that my right hon. Friend can think of, drawn from the benches opposite—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Hear, hear.

The PRIME MINISTER: There, at any rate, is one hon. Member who thinks he could do it. I have no doubt at all that he would print roubles! He would save the whole of the National Debt—he would pay it off—the whole thing would be liquidated! That is a very easy way of doing it, but at the same time I do not think it commends itself to the House of Commons. There are too many people like that outside. That is the real reason why there are Supplementary Estimates in France, Italy, the United States of America, as well as here. In the present unsettled state of the political and international atmosphere, you cannot quite forecast, at the beginning of the year, what the weather is going to be, and therefore it is quite impossible for you to plan your voyage and to say how much coal you are going to require before you will get through to the end. Supplementary Estimates are, therefore, inevitable until the world has settled down. I agree that the only expenditure where, as my right hon. Friend said in the course of his powerful statement, there is an opportunity of limiting the amount substantially, is War expenditure. Upon that the Government have stated their policy quite clearly and definitely to the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend stated what is the considered policy of the Cabinet. I listened to a good many of the speeches, and I never heard that any questions were asked from that bench. If there had been I should certainly have been very happy to answer them. With regard to naval expenditure, we have stated quite clearly what our policy is, and, as I understand, it is a policy which a good many hon. Members had in their minds beforehand, and which they suggested in their-speeches. Upon that there is agreement.
With regard to the East, where our expenditure has been heavy, I am quite prepared to defend the past, but what the House is concerned with is the future. I would only say this with regard to the past. We were in Mesopotamia when the present Government came into power. We 'might have cleared out immediately the War was over, and left that country for anyone to pick up; but that would
have been the most grievous folly on our part. Do not let us make the mistake in a moment of depression, in a moment of very natural apprehension, in consequence of the heaviness of our taxation, giving up control which has been assigned to us by the Powers of the world with the full consent of the inhabitants of that part of the country, of a land which may be of the greatest value in the developments of the future. It has been one of the richest lands under the sun. It is a country of infinite possibilities. All it needs is wise direction, careful management, and that country may yet be a country that will fully requite us for all expenditure which has been put upon it. What is the policy which the Government is pursuing in the future? The policy we are pursuing in the future is the policy which we promised the Arabs to pursue-to set up an Arab State under a British mandate, with an Arab Police, an Arab Army, with a nucleus British Force; and gradually the resources of that country-I have no doubt carefully managed and developed-will be more than ample to maintain the whole of the expenditure, and it will be of value to the whole civilised world, and to no one less than to those who have undertaken the responsibility for the sake of civilisation. That is our policy. The rebellion is being crushed. The Arab State is being set up. I am very hopeful that next year will show a complete development along those lines. Not only can the forces be reduced, but they can be compressed to dimensions which I have indicated. That will be to remove it as a permanent charge upon the expenditure of this country.

Mr. BILLING: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down-

The PRIME MINISTER: I have only five minutes. With regard to Palestine, there the forces have been reduced very substantially. There is a very able Governor there, and under his wise guidance I hope Palestine will soon cease to be a burden on the British taxpayer. These are the points upon which there is a possibility of reducing expenditure in the course of the current year. We propose to make it quite clear that with bad trade in front of us-

Mr. BILLING: Caused by Excess Profits Dusty!

The PRIME MINISTER: It does not matter for this purpose what it is caused by-I am dealing with expenditure. With bad trade in front of us, which is not confined to European countries-it is general throughout the world-with additional expenditure on the Exchequer due to unemployment-having regard to all these difficulties, this is not the time for developing even the most beneficent schemes, whether for education or health. Until the country has recovered strength, and until it has bridged over this period of exceptional difficulty, we will have to do much more marking time than any of us would really like to do. Then we propose to cut down our expenditure in the East by the processes I have indicated. We propose beyond that to very carefully the lessons of the War in relation to naval construction and the most efficient method of developing our naval strength. Finally, we shall go on scrutinising with the greatest care, the most relentless care, the estimates of every Department. We are doing so. We are devoting considerable time to that purpose, and I hope by this means, that we shall be able to reduce our expenditure to the lowest possible limits compatible with national security and efficiency. We are now examining the definite problem of expenditure. I am applying myself to that problem. I am quite willing to answer any questions which hon. Members may put to me, but my last point is this: we are exceedingly anxious to cut down general taxation where it can be done, not merely taxation that bears heavily upon industry and which must necessarily hamper industry, but we have every sympathy with the middle classes who not only made nothing out of the War, but many of whom have lost much, and to whom taxation means not only deprivation of luxuries, but actual deprivation of comfort and the essentials of life. One knows a good many of them. We are anxious, in the interests of all these classes, to do our best to cut down expenditure. We invite every suggestion that can be offered us. Many have been offered in some very able speeches by men who thoroughly understand the problem from a business point of view, and from Labour as well. We are anxious to welcome every suggestion and every assistance that can be given us, and I can assure the House, after sitting down
with my right hon. Friends to go through these Estimates one by one carefully, it is a difficult problem-it is an almost overwhelming problem-and any assistance we can receive will be of the greatest value, not merely to the Government, but to the country as a whole.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 321.

Division No. 398.]
AYES.
[10.59 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'I,W.D'by)
Rattan, Peter Wilson


Atkey, A. R.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hayward, Major Evan
Remnant, Sir James


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kendall, Athelstan


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Rose, Frank H.


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Hogge, James Myles
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Holmes, J. Stanley
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Briant, Frank
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Kenyon, Barnet
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Davidson, Major-General sir J. H.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Winterton, Major Earl


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Martin, Captain A. E.
Wintringham, T.


France, Gerald Ashburner
Mosley, Oswald
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Glanville, Harold James
Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Gretton, Colonel John
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)



Gritten, W. G. Howard
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guinness, Lieut Col. Hon. W. E.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Mr. Lambert and Mr. Marriott.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Burdett-Coutts, William
Elveden, Viscount


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Falcon, Captain Michael


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Butcher, Sir John George
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Cairns, John
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Cape, Thomas
Fildes, Henry


Austin, Sir Herbert
Carew, Charles Robert S.
Finney, Samuel


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Carr, W. Theodore
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Foreman, Henry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Casey, T. W.
Forrest, Walter


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Particle)
Chamberlain, Rt. Ho. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood
Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Gange, E. Stanley


Barlow, Sir Montague
Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)


Barnston, Major Harry
Churchman, Sir Arthur
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd


Barrand, A. R.
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Gilbert, James Daniel


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Coats, Sir Stuart
Gould, James C.


Beck, Sir C. (Essex, Saffron Walden)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Graham, R. (Nelson and Coine)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Grant, James A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Coyote, William (Tyrone, South)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Greer, Harry


Bigland, Alfred
Courthope, Major George L.
Gregory, Holman


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')


Blair, Reginald
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Hallwood, Augustine


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Harmoworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Denison-Pender, John C.
Hayday, Arthur


Breese, Major Charles E.
Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Britton, G. B.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Dixon, Captain Herbert
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bromfield, William
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Brown, Captain D. C.
Edge, Captain William
Higham, Charles Frederick


Bruton, Sir James
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Edwards. G. (Norfolk, South)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hood, Joseph


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Myers, Thomas
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Nall, Major Joseph
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Neal, Arthur
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-T.)


Hurd, Percy A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Simm, M. T.


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Sikh, Charles H.


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Irving, Dan
Nield, Sir Herbert
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Spencer, George A.


Jephcott, A. R.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Jesson, C.
O'Grady, Captain James
Stanton, Charles B.


Johnson, Sir Stanley
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Starkey, Captain John R.


Johnstone, Joseph
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Stevens, Marshall


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Stewart, Gershom


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Parker, James
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Sugden, W. H.


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Pearce, Sir William
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Swan, J. E.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Taylor, J.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Perring, William George
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Lindsay, William Arthur
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Lloyd, George Butler
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Tryon, Major George Clement


Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Lonsdale, James Rolston
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Lorden, John William
Pratt, John William
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Lort-Williams, J.
Preston, W. R.
Waterson, A. E.


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Prescott, Major W. H.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Weston, Colonel John W.


Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Purchase, H. G.
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Raeburs, Sir William H.
Whitla, Sir William


Lynn, R. J.
Randles, Sir John S.
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


M'Guffin, Samuel
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Reid, D. D.
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Remer, J. R.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


McMicking, Major Gilbert
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Maddocks, Henry
Rogers, Sir Hallowell
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Rothschild, Lionel de
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Matthews, David
Royden, Sir Thomas
Wise, Frederick


Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F B.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Mitchell, William Lane
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)
Wood, Major S. H III- (High Peak)


Moles, Thomas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Woolcock, William James U.


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Morris, Richard
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Seager, Sir William
Younger, Sir George


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Seddon, J. A.



Murchison, C. K.
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

Question put, "That the words,

realising that the reduction of national expenditure will tend to a diminution of the necessarily high cost of living and in order to secure a sound financial position with reduced taxation in the future, urges His Majesty's Government in preparing the

Estimates for the coming year to reduce to the utmost extent possible the expenditure in all public services,'

be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 307; Noes, 30.

Division No. 399.]
AYES.
[11.12 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Bean, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Banner, Sir John S. Hardwood-
Bennett, Thomas Jewell


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Barlow, Sir Montague
Bethell, Sir John Henry


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Barnett, Major R. W.
Bigland, Alfred


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Barnstorm, Major Harry
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Barrand, A. R.
Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland


Austin, Sir Herbert
Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Blair, Reginald


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Beck, Sir C. (Essex, Saffron Walden)
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Bottomley, Horatio W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bellairs, Commander Carryon W.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.


Boyd Carpenter, Major A.
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Hamilton, Major C. G C.
Nicholson, William G (Petersfieid)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Field, Sir Herbert


Bridgeman, William Clive
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Britton, G. B.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Co). Sir John


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Henderson, Major W. L. (Tradeston)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Bruton, Sir James
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Parker, James


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Higham, Charles Frederick
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Burdetts-Coutts, William
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.
Hinds, John
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Butcher, Sir John George
Holmes, J. Stanley
Perkins, Walter Frank


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Hood, Joseph
Perring, William George


Carr, W. Theodore
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)


Casey, T. W.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Hopkinson. A (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm.,W.)
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Pownall, Lieut. Colonel. Assheton


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Pratt, John William


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Preston, W. R.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Instep, Thomas Walker H.
Purchase, H. G.


Coats, Sir Stuart
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jephcott, A. R.
Randles, Sir John S.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Johnstone, Joseph
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Reid, D. D.


Conway. Sir W. Martin
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Remer, J. R.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lance, Stretford)


Courthope, Major George L.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Cowan. D. M. (Scottish Universities)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rothschild, Lionel de


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Royden, Sir Thomas


Daiziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lloyd, George Butler
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Locker-Lampson, Corn. O. (H'tingd'n)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Denison-Pender, John C.
Lorden, John William
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Seager, Sir William


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Seddon, J. A.


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lynn, R. J.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Edge, Captain William
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Elliot. Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
M'Guffin, Samuel
Simm, M. T.


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Elveden, Viscount
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Stanton, Charles B.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Starkey, Captain John R.


Falcon, Captain Michael
M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Macpherson. Rt. Hon. James I.
Stephenson, Lieut-Colonel H. K.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Maddocks, Henry
Stewart, Gershom


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Foreman, Henry
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Sugden, W. H.


Forrest, Walter
Martin, Captain A. E.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Matthews, David
Taylor, J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Gange, E. Stanley
Mitchell, William Lane
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Moles, Thomas
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Townshead, Sir Charles Were Ferrers


Gilbert, James Daniel
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J
Tryon, Major George Clement


Gould, James C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Grant, James A.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry
Morris, Richard
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Morrison, Hugh
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
(Hack'y, N.) Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Greer, Harry
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Gregory, Holman
Murchison, C. K.
Weston, Colonel John W.


Gretton, Colonel John
Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Whitla, Sir William


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Nall, Major Joseph
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Neal, Arthur
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Willey, Lieut-Colonel F. V.


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Lt-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)




Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Wise, Frederick
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Woolcock, William James U.
Younger, Sir George


Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Captain Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Graham, R. (Nelson and Coine)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Spencer, George A.


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet
Waterson, A. E.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
O'Grady, Captain James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)



Edwards, O. (Norfolk, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Finney, Samuel
Sexton, James
Mr. T. Shaw and Mr. Mills.


Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, realising that the reduction of national expenditure will tend to a diminution of the necessarily high cost of living and in order to secure a sound financial position with reduced taxation in the future, urges His Majesty's Government in preparing the Estimates for the coming year to reduce to the utmost extent possible the expenditure in all public services.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) [COMPENSATION.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to make provision for the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any compensation payable under any Act of the present Session to amend The Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, and to continue certain bye-laws in respect of the disposal of land freed from restrictive covenants."—[Sir A. Williamson.]

Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): Rather an anomalous position arises in that we have to come to the House of Commons to ask permission in certain circumstances to spend money under this Resolution. The real effect of the Resolution is to receive money; to enable us, in other words, to sell land of which the Government is now in possession. It is curious, but it is so. We have to remove certain restrictive covenants in order to effect a good sale, and in order to do so we have to compensate certain persons if they are damaged by the removal of these restrictive covenants. If we sell this land freed
from these restrictive covenants, and persons suffer some damage thereby, these persons are entitled to be compensated. They are already compensated under the principal Act, and therefore the further compensation which is possible is likely to be very small. It is exceedingly difficult to estimate. The sum of £50,000, which is mentioned in the White Paper, is considerably more than we are likely to require, but it is necessary for us to have power to compensate those persons who may be damaged by the sale of the land on which our factories stand, where these lands are complicated by these restrictive covenants.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move at the end of the Question to add the words "Provided that the sum to be expended shall not exceed the sum of thirty thousand pounds."
We have had a very remarkable explanation, indeed. My right hon. Friend started by saying that the only reason for moving this Resolution was to enable the War Office to receive money. Then he went on to explain that the real intention was to enable the War Office to pay, and he hoped that the sum total, according to the White Paper, will not exceed £50,000. But the White Paper has, of course, no legislative effect, and, as the Resolution stands, there is no limit at all. I do not wish to detain hon. Members after their long labours, and therefore simply move the proviso. Thirty thousand pounds is quite enough to go on with, and if they want any more money they will have to come to this House and prove their case for it. I think it is a most generous allowance under the circumstances.

Lieut.- - Commander KENWORTHY: Those of us who heard the Debate on the Bill itself will know that there is a great
deal more in it than has been said by the right hon. Gentleman. One of the reasons we were told why the matter had not been settled, and the land had not been sold was that the War Office had not made up their minds as to policy in regard to the number of rifle ranges they required-

The CHAIRMAN: That will come in on the Bill. We are only now discussing the money resolution that authorises one part of one clause.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then I beg your pardon for introducing it. In every case we have been discussing the question of economy. One of the things the Prime Minister avoided was any reference to the War Office, except in regard to the Estimate, which is his own particular branch of policy. But he invited us to aid the Government in pointing out where reductions of expenditure could be made. Here is an example, and I only hope that the rabid economists who all declare that they are standing for true economy and the rest of it will support us now. Let us endeavour to save £20,000, and put a check on that most wasteful and extravagant of Government Departments-the War Office.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I am glad to see the Secretary for Scotland in his place, for this applies to Scotland. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will explain how, under Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, compensation will be assessable in Scotland? I fail to follow it. I trust we still endeavour in Committee to deprive the Government of the power to purchase the land surrounding, upon which they may-

The CHAIRMAN: That question will arise in Committee on the Bill. The only question before us now is whether a limit should be put on the power to pay compensation-whether the total sum should be limited to £30,000. That is the sole point before the Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: What I was endeavouring to show was why this sum should be limited in the sense suggested by my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean), by reason of the fact that there are powers other than these contained in this Clause which the War Office will endeavour to use. I agree
with the reduction to £30,000. The White Paper says:
From the nature of the case it is impossible to form any exact forecast of the number of claims likely to arise or the compensation which may be awarded, but it is not thought that the sum will be large, as there is no intention of exercising the power in cases where this would cause heavy and widespread damage. On the best evidence available the total amount of compensation is not considered likely to exceed £50,000.
I suggest in the stringent financial necessities in which we find ourselves that £30,000 would be ample.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the purpose of this Resolution by which we are asking for £50,000. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was an advocate of not having supplementary Estimates and he indicated that the proper thing to do was to be quite frank as to the amount required. Now he moves an Amendment saying £30,000 is enough and he invites us to submit a supplementary Estimate if more money is required. I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman before eleven o'clock and after eleven o'clock. This is a matter upon which we do not need to spend much time. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has obscured his argument in the fervour with which he delivered it. The Bill is necessary because there is a considerable amount of land in the possession of the War Office on which premises have been built, and under Section 4 of the Act of 1916, we have been able to make use of that land free from restrictive covenants. In order to convey the property now belonging to the State it is necessary to have the power to sell it without diminishing its value under the restrictive covenants. The best way to realise is to be able to sell free from the restricted covenant. Certain compensation may have to be paid in the case where the restricted covenant is not to operate in the future, and that is the reason for the Clause in the Bill. This Financial Resolution relates solely and wholly to this particular Clause. The experience of Section 4 of the main Bill has been that very little money has been paid for compensation in respect of restricted covenants. We cannot state exactly what the sum required
may be, but we think it is better to ask for a sum that will be sufficient to enable us to bring in a very large sum of money when the sales of these properties take place. I hope my explanation has relieved some of the anxiety which has been expressed in this Debate with regard to this Resolution.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The Solicitor-General has argued this question as though the Government had put down a Vote for £50,000, and that I do not understand to be the case at all. The words before me are perfectly unlimited. "It is expedient to make provision for the payment of any compensation payable under any Act," and so on. In fact, the Solicitor-General is really defending the proposition that the way to do away with Supplementary Estimates is to make your original Estimate so absolutely vague that you can spend any money under it and never have to come for any Supplementary Estimate. That is a policy against which I have protested again and again. Ministers are constantly asking us to vote all the money there is. Under this we are voting away all the money there is. They can spend anything they like. They put in a footnote £50,000, but I take it that is no part of the Vote before us. They are not bound to £50,000. They can spend £500,000 or £5,000,000, and I think my right hon. Friend has done a public service in insisting that a figure should be put in. It is not so much a question of what particular figure, but a figure should be put in so as to make it clear that the House is keeping some kind of control over the money it is voting, and it is not voting away in a few moments absolute liberty to Ministers to spend any money they like.

Major-General Sir N. MOORE: As one of those who voted with the Government with a view of impressing on Parliament the necessity of exercising every economy risking the possibility of being pilloried in the newspapers, I think it is not unreasonable for us to ask that some schedule might be attached to this giving some indication of the way in which they propose to spend this money. If it is for rifle ranges I am going to support it, because I am a supporter of universal training; but it is essential that we should know in what manner they propose to expend the money, and I shall support the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Perhaps it will save time if I say that while it is true that it is very difficult to estimate the sum it must be remembered that it will have some relation to the amount that we receive. The removal of the restrictions will probably mean that a very much larger sum will be received from the land. It is a question purely of business whether it suits us to pay this compensation and get a higher price for the land or not, and it might be presented as a receipt loss or expense. But it is impossible under our Parliamentary usages to so treat money. Where we have to pay out in this form we have to receive the authority of the House of Commons. in an ordinary business transaction a man would simply take the larger sum and deduct the charge. If it will save time I will meet the right hon. Gentleman to this extent. If he will make it a sum not exceeding £50,000

Sir D. MACLEAN: indicated dissent

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept that my offer falls to the ground. I should be willing to make that concession to him in order to show that there is no desire to have a very large sum.

Dr. MURRAY: If the land is suitable for rifle ranges-

The CHAIRMAN: It is stated, if the hon. Member will look at the words in italics, that it is nothing of the kind. It is compensation for the abolition of restrictions when the land is sold.

Dr. MURRAY: I quite understand that. One reason for not giving the Government enough money would be that they could not sell all the land if they did not get all the money, and therefore perhaps some of the land is suitable for small holdings, We know the Government has not enough money for small holdings in Scotland, and why should they sell this land and not use it for the settling of soldiers?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to the present matter.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: I am exactly the reverse of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir N. Moore) in the Lobby. It appears we voted for a different thing for the same reason. I understand that in future no money of any
description, even to pay teachers or provide unemployment grants, is to be voted by the House for any purpose whatsoever. It might be quite sound to vote this money for the Government to buy the land, and it might be sounder still to buy the land.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: It is not to buy the land.

Mr. BILLING: I understand there are certain buildings upon certain land which the Government wishes to get control of for the purpose of disposing of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then I will not detain the Committee for a moment longer than necessary.

Colonel GRETTON: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not proceed with his Amendment. The Government has met us very fairly. They have offered to accept a reasonable limitation of the amount of expenditure, and it is quite within the power of the Committee upstairs to insure that the expenditure is only in case of sale where it is a condition of sale that these rights should be acquired and transferred to the purchaser. It will not be beyond the capacity of the Solicitor-General to draft a Clause, and I think he might quite well accept such a Clause, to safeguard us against unnecessary expenditure, and if the Government would give some indication on that line I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not proceed with his Amendment.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I think we should have a little snore explanation as to what the money is really required for. I understand it is required to sell land. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Is it to buy land?

Sir E. POLLOCK: It is necessary as compensation.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: To pay compensation to enable the Government to sell land. What sort of land do they propose to sell? We heard some months ago a very lively dispute between a Member of the Upper House and the Government about certain land in Midlothian which they had sold under compulsory powers. I will leave that question if I am not in order but I should

really like to know to what class of land this Resolution refers. I hope my right hon. Friend will not agree to the reduction of the amount which he proposed. It is all very well for the Solicitor-General to twit my right hon. Friend with inconsistency before and after 11 o'clock. It is beyond the point altogether. A Supplementary Estimate, as we understand it now, is a sort of whitewashing for money they have spent without the sanction of Parliament. What my right hon. Friend wants to insist on is that the Government should come for a reasonable sum, and when they find that is exhausted, without having spent any more they come for authority to spend a further amount, and they are not to be whitewashed for having spent without the authority of Parliament. I think if we agree to give the Government for this unknown purpose, £30,000, or even £25,000, it is ample.

Sir D. MACLEAN: To show my extreme reasonahleness, and that I have really definite objections, if the right hon. Gentleman makes it £40,000, as far as I am concerned the Committee can go home. If he does not, I will divide.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: In order to give the right hon. Gentleman time to think it over, may I ask the Secretary for Scotland what sort of covenants will be effected in Scotland. I really do not understand Sub-section (3), which deals with the application of the Act to Scotland. Will he explain the legal meaning?

Captain WATSON: I think the Committee is ready to go to a Division. We have had an explanation from the Government as to the course they propose, but we have not had the slightest explanation from the right hon. Gentleman opposite and those who support him as to why they threw out these airy figures of £30,000 or £40,000. Until we have some explanation from them I am quite prepared to vote with the Government.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 100.

Division No. 400.]
AYES.
11.54 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Bromfield, William
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormokirk)
Cairns, John
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Cape, Thomas
France, Gerald Ashburner


Glanville, Harold James
Raffan, Peter Wilson
White, Charles F (Derby, Western)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Sexton, James
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Hayward, Major Evan
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Mr. George Thorne and Colonel Penry Williams.


Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Spencer, George A.



Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Swan, J. E.



NOES.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Atkey, A. R.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Henderson, Major W. L. (Tradeston)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pratt, John William


Barnston, Major Harry
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Purchase, H. G.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Higham, Charles Frederick
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Hinds, John
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Remnant, Sir James


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hurd, Percy A.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Royden, Sir Thomas


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Brown, Captain D. C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Bruton, Sir James
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Sugden, W. H.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Casey, T. W.
Lort-Williams, J.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Lynn, R. J.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Maddocks, Henry
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Whitla, Sir William


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Edge, Captain William
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Murchison, C. K.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Flides, Henry
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Forrest, Walter
Nall, Major Joseph
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Neal, Arthur
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)



Gregory, Holman
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Lord Edmund Talbot and Captain


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Parker, James
Guest.


Hamilton, Major C. G C.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry



Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Friday).

Orders of the Day — ROADS [CONSOLIDATED FUND].

Resolutions reported,
That there shall be charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund, in accordance with the directions of the Treasury, a sum equal to the proceeds of the duties on licences for mechanically-propelled vehicles and for carriages and of all other sums paid into the Exchequer under any Act of the present Session to make provision for the collection and application of the Excise duties on mechanically-propelled vehicles and on carriages; to amend The Finance Act, 1920, as respects such duties; and to amend the Motor Car Acts, 1896 and 1903, and The Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909; and to make other provision with respect to roads and vehicles used on roads, and for purposes connected therewith.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

12 M.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): This is a formal Resolution. By Clause one of the Bill the duties which are imposed by the Finance Act of the present year are being collected by the County Councils, and they are to be paid over by the County Councils to the Exchequer. Clause 2 authorises the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of a sum exactly equal to the sum paid in. There is no question of public expenditure in connection with it in any form

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member says that the amount of money to be paid out will be covered by the amount to come in, and that there will be no public expenditure. Will not this mean more officials to supervise the money?

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): They will not be paid out of public funds.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [8TH DECEMBER].

Resolution reported,
That for the purpose of calculating the amount of the fluty chargeable on a licence for a vehicle under the Second Schedule to The Finance Act, 1920, the expression "weight unladen in that schedule should be taken to be the weight of the vehicle inclusive of the body, and all parts (the heavier being taken where alternative bodies or parts are used) which are necessary to or ordinarily used with the vehicle when working on a road, but exclusive of the weight of water, fuel, or accumulators (other than boilers) used for the purpose of propulsion and of loose tools or loose equipment.
Provided that in the case of a vehicle which weighs more than seven and a quarter tons, and is specially constructed so that all or part of the superstructure is a permanent, or essentially permanent, fixture and the axle weights of which do not exceed the maximum axle weights prescribed under The Motor Car Act, 1903, or any Act amending that Act, the weight unladen of the vehicle shall be deemed to be seven and a quarter tons.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can we have an explanation? Is there any expenditure of public money, or will it be got over by some financial trickery which I do not understand?

Mr. NEAL: My hon. Friend does not quite appreciate what is happening in this matter. This is a Ways and Means resolution and it comes only because there is a very fine question as to whether under certain circumstances a duty imposed by the Finance Act might be involved. In the Finance Act motor taxation takes the form of a tax upon vehicles varying according to the class of the vehicle. On vehicles for the conveyance of goods on roads the duty payable varies with the weight. A vehicle which weighs not more than 12 cwt. pays a £10 tax, a vehicle not exceeding a ton pays £16, and so on by a graduated scale. The question which has caused some difficulty is how are vehicles to be weighed. The phrase in the Finance Act is "weight unladen" and this is to define what we mean by "weight unladen." I can most simply illustrate the definition by the analogy of an empty car ready to receive its load. There is another definition which might confuse it, and in order that there might be proper
weighing of vehicles we instituted this definition.

Orders of the Day — REGISTRAR GENERAL (SCOTLAND [SALARY]

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such Salary as may become payable to the Registrar General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland under any Act of the present Session amending the Law relating to the appointment of that officer.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Surely we are going to have some explanation of this Resolution. I do not know if any hon. Members could give much of an account of it except the Secretary for Scotland. I am not going to see money going like this without a word. Even if this was explained two days ago, the debate to-night and the Prime Minister's appeal have put a different complexion on the financial situation. He invites all sections to assist. I want to see if we cannot do so.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): If my hon. and gallant Friend would read the White Paper, he would find that these are no new charges. The sole purpose of the Resolution is to enable the salary to be paid to the new Registrar-General of Scotland.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) [GRANTS].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to Housing in Scotland, and for purposes in connection therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants under section one of The Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, in respect of houses completed within two years of the passing of that Act or such further period not exceeding four months as the Scottish Board of Health may in any special case allow.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee on the said Resolution."

Mr. MUNRO: The purpose of this Resolution is to enable the period of subsidy payable to builders up to 23rd December this year to be extended for another year. No further charge is involved as a sum of £15,000,000 has been set apart for this purpose. The sole object is to extend the time and not to increase the money.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve minutes after Twelve o'clock.